1 2026:CGHC:15570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 977 of 2019 1 - Ramesh Dhiwar, S/o. Nan Dau Dhiwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Anjani Dhiwar, W/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Tarini Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Karuna Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Karan Kumar, S/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.07 16:50:07 +0530 2 Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Raju Dubey, S/o. Shyam Lal Dubey, Aged About 43 Years, Occupation Driver And Transporter, R/o. Village Gondaiya, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Offending Vehicle Pickup No. CG. 13, L-2308). 2 - Ganesh Ram Sahu, S/o. Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Pakariya, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Pickup No. CG -13, L-2308). 3 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Registered And Head Office Dare House, Second Floor No. 2, N.S.G. Bose Road Chennai -60001 (India), Through Branch Manger M.S. General Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office Hinduja Complex, First Floor, No. 22, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Pick Up No. CG-13, L-2308). --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate & MAC No. 1188 of 2019 1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Registered And Head Office Deyar House 2nd Floor NSG Bose Road, Chennai, 3 Through Branch Manager Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Hinduja Complex 1st Floor No. 22 Near Railway Line Devendra Nagar Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..................(Insurer) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Ramesh Dhiwar, S/o. Nandau Dhiwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Anjana Dhiwar, W/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Tarini Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Karuna Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Karan Kumar Dhiwar, S/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ................(Claimants) 4 6 - Raju Dubey, S/o. Shyam Lal Dubey, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Village Godaiya P.O. Ranigaon P.S. Ratanpur Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver) 7 - Ganesh Ram Sahu, S/o. Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Pakariya, P.S. Mulmula (Akaltara) Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5/ Claimants : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 22.01.2019, passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.654/2017, the claimants have preferred MAC No.977/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and the insurance company has preferred MAC No.1188/2019 questioning his liability to pay the amount of 5 compensation. Therefore, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate and further the deceased was gratuitous passenger, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants, while supporting the impugned award, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and would submit that the grounds taken by the insurance company is not established, therefore, liability has rightly been fastened upon the insurance company. 4. Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, learned counsel appearing for the driver & owner of the offending vehicle, would support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. MAC No.1188/2019 6. The first ground taken by the insurance company is that the deceased was gratuitous passenger, therefore, the insurance 6 company is not liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, the statement of Manoj Shrivas (AW-2) may be referred herein wherein he has clearly stated that the deceased had already de-boarded the Bus and he was answering the call of nature. At that time, the offending vehicle dashed him and he died and it has not been controverted by the insurance company. As such, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. 7. Similarly, with regard to the permit, the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in paragraph 18 of its judgment relying upon the statement of Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Manager of the insurance company, that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 2750 Kg and as per Section 66(3)(i), if the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 3000 Kg then the permit is not required. The finding recorded in this regard is also a finding of fact based on evidence available on the record. 8. The last submission is with regard to fitness of the offending vehicle. However, this argument is based on the facts and statement of Rakesh Kumar (NAW-1) that since the police has filed the final report against the owner of the vehicle for offence under Section 56/192 and 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the owner did not have the valid fitness certificate. However, the mere 7 submission of the charge sheet would not per se amount to prove the fact that the owner did not have valid fitness certificate of the vehicle. It was open to the insurance company to prove the said fact by clinching evidence. 9. In that view of the matter, the insurance company has failed to establish that the offending vehicle did not have fitness certificate on the date of accident. As such, the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. MAC No.977/2019 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Lokesh Dhiwar to be Rs. 6,000/- per month, 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 deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 7,930/- per month. Accordingly, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 6,000/- per month = Rs. 72,000/- per annum Rs. 7,930/- per month = Rs. 95,160/- per annum Add future prospects @40% Rs. 72,000 + 28,800 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Rs. 95,160 + 38,064 = = Rs. 1,33,224/- Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs. 50,400 = Rs. 66,612/- 8 Multiplier of 18 Rs. 50,400 x 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/- Rs. 66,612 x 18 = Rs. 11,99,016/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 9,27,200/- Rs. 12,49,016/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,27,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,49,016/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,27,200/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,21,816/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% 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 remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok