1 CGHC010043202019 2026:CGHC:35213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 380 of 2019 Smt. Meera Verma W/o Late Shri Puran Chandra Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Mahadev Ghat Para, Power House Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Mother Of Deceased) (Claimants) ---Appellant(s) versus 1 - Raghuram Sethiya S/o Shiv Manu Sethiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Vil- lage Markel, Mani Road Nh 63 Road, P.S. Nagarnar Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 2 - Charan Singh Sethiya S/o Shri Premnath Sethiya R/o Village - Markel, P.S. Nagarnar Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor) Cg17kl6472, 3 - Dhanurjay Sethiya S/o Shri Lakhiram Sethiya R/o Village Markel, P.S. Na- garnar Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Trolley) Cg17kl3145, 4 - Branch Manager Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Simran Towers, Opp To Lic Building Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. (Insurance Co. Of Tractor), 5 - Branch Manager The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Shop No. 516, National Corporation Park, G.E. Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co. Of Trolley), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1591 of 2018 Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Deputy Manager Legal, 2nd Floor Simran Tower, Opposite Lic Building Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Tractor ), ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Meera Verma W/o Late Puran Chandra Verma Aged About 50 Years Occupation - House Wife R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Mahadeo Ghatpara, Power- house Chowk Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.13 17:07:01 +0530 2 2 - Raghuram Sethiya S/o Shri Manu Sethiya, Aged About 50 Years R/o Vil- lage - Markel Main Road, Nh 43 Road, Police Station Nagarnar, Tehsil Jag- dalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Tractor ) 3 - Charan Singh Sethiya S/o Premnath Sethiya R/o Village Markel Police Station Nagarnar, Tehsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Trolly ), 4 - Dhanurjay Sethiya S/o Lakhiram Sethiya , R/o Village Markel Police Sta- tion Nagarnar, Tehsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver ), 5 - Branch Manager, The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Shop No. 516 National Corporate Park, G E Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Trolly ) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 169 of 2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore M. P., District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt.Meera Verma W/o Late Pooran Chandra Verma Aged About 50 Years Occpation Housewife, R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Mahadev Ghatpara, Power House Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh......Claimant, 2 - Raghuram Sethiya S/o Shri Manu Sethiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Vil- lage Markel Mainroad, Nh 43, P. S. Nagarnar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh......Driver, 3 - Charan Singh Sethiya S/o Shri Premnath Sethiya R/o Village Markel Main- road, Nh 43, P. S. Nagarnar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh......Owner (Tractor), 4 - Dhanurjay Sethiya S/o Shri Lakhiram Sethiya R/o Village Markel P. S. Na- garnar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh......Owner (Trolley), 5 - Cholamandlam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Brancha Manager, Iind Floor, Simran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh......Insurer (Tractor), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Claimants : Mr. Aditi Joshi, advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Appellant-Insurance Company- Cholanmandlam : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Appellant- Reliance General In- surance Company : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, advocate ap- pears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 11.08.2026 1. Since these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The claimant as well as the insurance companies have preferred these three appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 23.06.2018 in Claim Case No. 101/2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “AMACT”). The claimant, in her appeal i.e. MAC No.380/2019, is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereas the Insurance Com- panies, in their respective appeals i.e. MAC No.1591/2018 and MAC No.169/2019, are seeking to avoid their liability to pay the compensa- tion awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are that the claimant, being the mother of de- ceased Rohit Verma, filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.26,10,000/- on account of the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.05.2017 at about 6:15 p.m. near Jira- gaon Pond, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar. It was pleaded that the deceased, along with his friend Hemant Baghel and respondent No.1, the driver of tractor bearing registration No. CG-17-KL-6472 at- tached with trolley bearing registration No. CG-17-KL-3145, had gone to the pond for washing the tractor and bathing and, while returning, re- spondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and moved the tractor and trolley forward and backward while attempting to turn it, resulting in the trolley overturning and crushing the deceased, who died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 24 years and was allegedly running a tea shop at Jagdalpur, earning Rs.10,000/- per 4 month and supporting his mother. The driver and owners denied negli- gence and alleged that the deceased was under the influence of alco- hol and fell from the vehicle, whereas the Insurance Companies raised the defence of breach of policy conditions. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respon- dent No.1, rejected the defence regarding breach of the policy condi- tions, and awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- to the claimant, holding the insurers of the tractor and trolley equally liable to satisfy the award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Claims Tri- bunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 4500/- per month (for four month) which should be Rs. 9230/- per month (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. 5. In MAC No.1591/2018, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the deceased was travelling in the trolley, which was separately insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., and, therefore, the ap- pellant/insurer of the tractor cannot be held liable to pay the compensa- tion. It is further submitted that, since the accident occurred due to the trolley overturning, the liability would be that of the insurer of the trolley, and the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be fastened with any lia- bility to pay the compensation. 6. In MAC No.169/2019, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., submits that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensa- tion. It is further submitted that the deceased was neither a labourer en- gaged in the offending vehicle nor was any goods being transported at the relevant time. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, erred in fas- tening 50% liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company without properly considering the terms and conditions of the insurance policy 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. It would be appropriate, at the first instance, to consider the question of liability of the respective Insurance Companies. 9. It is the case of the Insurance Companies that the deceased was trav- elling in the offending vehicle. However, both the insurers have taken mutually inconsistent stands regarding the place where the deceased was allegedly travelling at the time of the accident. 10.According to the appellant/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the tractor, since the deceased was crushed beneath the trolley, the insurer of the tractor cannot be held liable. On the other hand, learned counsel for Reliance General Insurance Com- pany Ltd., insurer of the trolley, submits that the deceased was sitting in the tractor and, therefore, its Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 11.However, the pleadings and evidence on record do not support the aforesaid submissions. The written statement filed by Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. is silent as to whether the de- ceased was sitting in the trolley or was otherwise crushed beneath it. Even its witness, Vipin Kumar Sahu (NAW-1), though examined be- fore the Claims Tribunal, has not deposed that the deceased was either sitting in the trolley or was crushed beneath it. His evidence is confined only to the seating capacity of the tractor, and no evidence whatsoever has been led to substantiate the plea now advanced before this Court. Thus, the submission raised on behalf of appellant/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. is neither supported by the pleadings nor by the evidence and, therefore, cannot be accepted. 12.So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/Reliance General Insur- ance Company Ltd. is concerned, no evidence has been led to estab- lish that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. On the contrary, the eyewitness, Hemant Baghel (AW-2), has clearly stated 6 that the deceased was standing outside the vehicle and, when the trol- ley overturned, he came beneath the trolley and suffered fatal injuries. Thus, it is evident that the deceased was neither sitting in the tractor nor travelling in the trolley as a passenger. 13.In the absence of any material establishing breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fas- tening 50% liability upon each of the insurers. Consequently, the ap- peals preferred by both the Insurance Companies deserve to be dis- missed. 14.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 9230/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at rele- vant time). Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be reassessed at Rs. 9230-. 15.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:- Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 4,500/- 9230/- 2. Yearly Income 4500x12 =54000 9230x12=110760 3. Future Prospect (+)40% 21600/- ; Total Rs.75600/- (+)40% 44304/-; Total 155064/- 4. Deduction (-)1/2 i.e. 37800/- = 37800/- (-)1/2 i.e. 77532/- = 77532/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 7 6. Multiplier (x) 18 (x) 18 7. Annual Income 50625 x 18= 6,80,400/- 56250 x 18 = 1395576/- 8. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 10. Loss of Consortium 40,000/- 40000/- Total 7,50,400/- 14,65,576/- 16.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 7,50,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,65,576/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 7,50,400/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7,15,176/-. The concerned appellant/Insurance Companies are 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 @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tri- bunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17.Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimant, i.e. MAC No.380/2019, is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The appeals preferred by the In- surance Companies, i.e. MAC No.1591/2018 and MAC No.169/2019, are dismissed, being devoid of merit. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti