1 CGHC010271132019 2026:CGHC:37800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1622 of 2019 1 - Kailash Chand Jain S/o - Shri Radhe Shyam Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o - Motiram Jain And Company, Main Road Titlagarh, District Balangir (Orissa) 2 - Smt. Heeramani Jain W/o - Shri Kailash Chand Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o - Motiram Jain And Company, Main Road Titlagarh, District Balangir (Orissa), District : Balangir, Orissa --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rohit Naik S/o - Shri Damru Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o - Behind Bairan Bazar Masjit, Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Shankar Pandey S/o - Late J.K. Pandey, Aged About 61 Years R/o - 445, Sector-2, Patrakar Vihar, Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattis- garh, 3 - The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, R. Amines Commercial Complex, 1st Floor G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1678 of 2019 1 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Address R, Em- inence Commercial Complex, 1st, Floor, G. E. Raod, Tatibandh Raipur, Dis- trict Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.25 11:45:46 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Kailash Chand Jain S/o Late Radheshyam Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Motiram Jain And Company, Main Raod Tiltagarh, Tahsil Tiltagarh, District Balangeer Odisa., District : Balangir, Orissa 2 - Smt. Heeramani Jain S/o Shri Kailashchand Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o Motiram Jain And Company, Main Raod Tiltagarh, Tahsil Tiltagarh, District Balangeer Odisa., District : Balangir, Orissa 3 - Rohit Nayak S/o Shri Damru Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Byron Bazar, Behind Masjid Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Dis- trict : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shankar Pandey R/o 445, Sector -2, Patrakar Vihar, Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Claimants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Appellant-Insurance Company : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 24.08.2026 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 13.05.2019 in Claim Case No. 552/2017 passed by the 1st Addi- tional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 1622/2019 are seeking en- hancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1678/2019 is seeking exoneration from the liability im- posed upon it by the learned Claims Tribunal.. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 8000/- per month (for four month) which should be Rs. 10,000/- 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 being operated without a valid permit on the date of the accident and, therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company can- not be fastened with the liability to satisfy the award. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the compen- sation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 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. So far as the appeal preferred by the respondent-Insurance Company is concerned, although the Insurance Company pleaded that the of- fending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence to establish the said fact. The learned Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the Insurance Company, as the alleged breach of the policy condition on account of absence of a valid permit was not proved by any cogent evidence. No valid or substantial ground has been made out warranting interference with the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimants are con- cerned, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of de- 4 ceased to be 8000/- 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 10000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at rele- vant time). Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be reassessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under the other conventional heads. Ac- cordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation by granting the amounts to which the claimants are legally entitled un- der those heads. 8. 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 8000/- 10,000/- 2. Yearly Income 8000x12 =96000 10000x12=1,20,00 0/- 3. Future Prospect (+)40% 38400/- ; Total Rs. 1,34,400/- (+)40% 1,68,000/-; Total /- 4. Deduction (-)1/2 i.e. 67200/- = 67200/- (-)1/2 i.e. 84000/- = 84000/- 6. Multiplier (x) 18 (x) 18 7. Annual Income 67200 x 18= 12,09,600/- 84000 x 18 = 15,12,000/- 8. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 18,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- 10. Loss of Consortium ---- 48,000x2=96000 Total 12,39,600/- 16,44,000/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,39,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 16,44,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 12,39,600/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 4,04,400/-. 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 @9% 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. 10.Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.1622/2019 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.1678/2019 is dismissed finding no merits. 11.All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti