1 CGHC010186942021 2026:CGHC:32194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 419 of 2021 1 - Kaushal Yadav S/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Nearby Mandi, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , Dis- trict Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhatha- para, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ku. Mamta Yadav D/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 17 Years Mi- nor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav, R/o Nearby Mandi, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Ku. Manju Yadav D/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 15 Years Mi- nor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav, R/o Nearby Mandi, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Ku. Madhu Yadav D/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 14 Years Mi- nor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav, R/o Nearby Mandi, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Kailash Yadav S/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav, R/o Nearby Mandi, Balb- hadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Minor Karan Yadav S/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav, R/o Nearby Mandi, Balb- hadra Ward Bhatapara , Police Station Bhatapara (Sahar) , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Kumar Rajput S/o Tilakra Rajput Aged About 21 Years R/o God- hikala, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 14-Ja-9496), District : Be- metara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Premlal Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o In- dira Colony, Baloda Bazar, Police Station Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Through Power Of Attorney Sanat Kumar Rajput S/o Rekhan Singh Rajput , Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Godhikala, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Ve- hicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Ja-9496) 2 3 - Branch Manager Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Lim- ited , Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Behind L.I.C. Building , Pan- dri Railway Fatak Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Ja-9496) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 227 of 2022 1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Reginal Officer, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower Opposite Lic Building, Pandri Rail- way Fatak, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Kaushal Yadav S/o Late Mr. Prem Lal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Nearby Mandi Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mamta Yadav, D/o Late Mr. Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav R/o Nearby Mandi Balb- hadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manju Yadav D/o Late Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav R/o Nearby Mandi Balb- hadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Madhu Yadav D/o Prem Lal Yadav, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav R/o Nearby Mandi Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattis- garh. 5 - Kailash Yadav S/o Late Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav R/o Nearby Mandi Balb- hadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Karan Yadav S/o Late Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Brother Kaushal Yadav R/o Nearby Mandi Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattis- garh. 7 - Rajesh Kumar Rajput S/o Tilakram Rajput Aged About 21 Years Village Godikala, P.S. Nawagadh, Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 8 - Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Premlal Sharma R/o Indra Colony, Baloud- abazar, P.S. Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Claimants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Appellant-Insurance Company : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent Owner-Driver : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge 3 Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being dis- posed by this common judgment. 2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi- cles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 02.03.2021 in Claim Case No. H-08/2016 passed by the Addi- tional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their ap- peal i.e. MAC No. 419/2021 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 227/2022 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the AMACT. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 4500/- per month (for four month) which should be Rs. 5,000/- per month (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that under the head of consortium amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the First Information Report was initially registered against an unknown vehicle and that the insured vehicle was seized only after a lapse of 45 days, without any cogent material connecting it with the accident. It is further submitted that such unexplained delay in seizure and implication of the vehicle casts seri- ous doubt on its involvement in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in holding the insured vehicle to be involved in the accident and in fastening liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. More- over, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that 4 the compensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 02.03.2021 is on higher side, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of the claimants deserves to be dismissed while making deduction in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. On behalf of the Insurance Company, NAW-2 Nidhi Dogre was exam- ined before the Claim Tribunal. In her deposition, she stated that the accident occurred on 10.02.2011, whereas the offending vehicle was seized only on 27.03.2011, i.e., after a delay of 45 days. According to her, the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case. However, it is evi- dent from her testimony that she is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and her deposition is based only on the police records. 7. The driver of the offending vehicle, Rajesh Kumar Rajput (NAW-1), has also been examined. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he cate- gorically admitted that "the elderly person was hit by his vehicle and af- ter he sustained injuries, he took him to the Community Health Centre, Bhatapara, for treatment. During the course of treatment, Prem Lal Ya- dav succumbed to the injuries." This admission clearly establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Thus, the oral evi- dence on record clearly establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. 8. PW-2 Trilok Saluja, an eyewitness to the occurrence, has categorically deposed that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-JA-9496 due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. His testimony inspires confidence and has remained con- sistent on the material particulars regarding the involvement of the of- fending vehicle. Moreover, the driver of the offending vehicle (NAW-1) has also admitted that the deceased was hit by his vehicle and that he had taken the injured to the Community Health Centre, Bhatapara for treatment. 5 9. Thus, it is evident from the evidence available on record that the of- fending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-JA-9496 was involved in the accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. Once the involvement of the insured vehicle stands duly established, the Insurance Company cannot disown or evade its statutory liability to indemnify the insured and satisfy the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 10.So far as the appeal preferred by the respondent- Insurance Company is concerned, no valid or substantial ground has been made out war- ranting interference with the award passed by the learned Claims Tri- bunal. 11.So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimants are con- cerned, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of de- ceased to be 4,500/- however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the de- ceased should be 5000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at rele- vant time). Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be reassessed at Rs. 5000/-. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under the other conventional heads. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation by grant- ing the amounts to which the claimants are legally entitled under those heads. 12.Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 4,500/- 5000/- 2. Yearly Income 4500x12 =54000 5000x12=60000 3. Future Prospect (+)25% 13500/- ; Total Rs.67500/- (+)25% 15000/-; Total 75000/- 4. Deduction (-)1/4 i.e. 16875/- = 50625/- (-)1/4 i.e. 18750/- = 56250/- 6. Multiplier (x) 13 (x) 13 7. Annual Income 50625 x 13= 6,58,125/- 56250 x 13 = 7,31,250/- 8. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 18,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- 10. Loss of Consortium 2,40,000/- 2,88,000/- Total 9,28,125/- 10,55,250/- 13.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,28,125/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,55,250/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,28,125/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,27,125/-. The concerned appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall re- main intact. 14.Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.419/2021 is al- lowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as in- dicated herein-above. The appeal of the Insurance company i.e. MAC No.227/2022 is dismissed finding no merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti