1 CGHC010187222024 2026:CGHC:41447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1077 of 2024 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Correct And Present Address- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301, 302, Corporate House, 169 R N T Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shivkumari Porte (Netam) D/o Karan Porte W/o Late Rajesh Netam Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Piparkhunti, Police Station And Tehsil Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sevaram Netam S/o Late Jaitar Netam Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Piparkhunti, Police Station And Tehsil Kota District Bialspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Sushila Netam W/o Sevaram Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Piparkhunti, Police Station And Tehsil Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gourishankar Netam S/o Sevaram Netam Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Piparkhunti, Police Station And Tehsil Kota District Bialspur, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Surendra Kumar Thakur S/o Hariram Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o Rammndir Ward No. 14 Kota, Police Station And Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Pushpa Tiwari W/o Suryabali Tiwari R/o Padavpara Kota, Tehsil And Police Station Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 & 6 None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (23.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award dated 07.03.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.699/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.19,79,379/- as compensation for the death of Late Rajesh Netam, who died in a road accident which took place on 21.07.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from illegality and therefore liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of approximately 855 days from the date of the accident, which casts serious doubt on the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is contended that 3 the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the younger brother of the deceased cannot be treated as a dependent for the purpose of computation of compensation. Thus, out of the four claimants, only three could be considered as dependents. Consequently, in terms of the settled principles governing deduction towards personal and living expenses, a deduction of 1/3rd of the income ought to have been made instead of 1/4th as adopted by the learned Tribunal. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation be recalculated by applying a deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants submits that the claimants have filed cross-appeal for enhancement of the award amount. He further submits that the FIR was registered after completion of the Merg inquiry. He further submits that the Merg was registered on the very same day i.e. on 05.08.2019 at Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur, as a Zero Merg, wherein the cause of death was stated to be a road accident. It is also submitted that, upon investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated. In the absence of any such material, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company is just and proper and calls 4 for no interference. 4. As regards enhancement, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,800/- per month, whereas, on the date of the accident, i.e., 21.07.2019, the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh were Rs. 8,400/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 8,400/- per month. As regards deduction from the income of the deceased, learned counsel further submits that the younger brother of the deceased was aged about 18 years and was a member of the joint family. He submits that the said younger brother is not the sole claimant, but is one of the legal representatives of the deceased along with the wife, mother and father. Therefore, he is required to be considered as a legal representative for the purpose of determination of compensation. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation in his favour and has correctly applied the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed, whereas the cross-appeal preferred by the respondents/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation deserves to be allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through 5 the records with utmost circumspection. 6. As regards the question of false implication of the offending vehicle, the claimants have examined Shivkumari Porte (AW-1) and Sewaram Netam (AW-2). From the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5), it is evident that deceased Rajesh Netam succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 05.08.2019, i.e., about 18 days after the date of the accident. The Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5) was registered on the date of death itself, on the basis of information received from DKS Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur. The Death Intimation (Ex.P-4), Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5), Inquest (Ex.P- 6) and Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P-7) establish that deceased Rajesh Netam had sustained injuries in a road accident and was admitted to the hospital for treatment, where he subsequently succumbed to his injuries. It is true that the FIR was lodged after a delay on the basis of the Merg inquiry. However, according to the final report (Ex.P-1) filed by the police, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Surendra Kumar @ Chhotu. The aforesaid evidence led by the claimants has not been effectively controverted or rebutted by the appellant. There is also no evidence available on record to establish that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence, the mere delay in lodging the FIR, particularly when the Merg was registered on the date of death and the subsequent investigation culminated in filing of a charge- sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, is not sufficient to discard the involvement of the offending vehicle. 6 Accordingly, the first contention raised by the appellant regarding false implication of the offending vehicle is found to be without substance and is, therefore, rejected. 7. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, in the present case, the claimants pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that deceased, Rajesh Netam was labour and earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. However, no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/- for unskilled labourer on the date of accident. Considering the deceased as unskilled labourer, it would be proper to take his monthly income of Rs.8,400/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 8. As regards the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, the younger brother of the deceased, aged about 18 years, was a member of the joint family and one of the legal representatives along with the wife, mother and father. It has also not been stated that younger brother of the deceased was residing separately or that he had any source of income. Therefore, the deduction of 1/4th made by the learned Tribunal is proper and calls for no interference. 9. The learned claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x 4 claimants) 7 towards consortium, which in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the date of accident 21.07.2019, is not found to be justified and needs to be modified suitably. 10. 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 & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 7800 x 12 = Rs.93,600/- Rs. 8400 x 12 = Rs.1,00,800/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 37,440/-) = 1,31,040/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 40,320/-) = 1,41,120/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. 32,760/-) = 98,280/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 35,280/-) = 1,05,840/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 17,69,040/- (x) 18 = 19,05,120/- 5 Towards consortium to all 04 claimants Rs. 1,76,000/- Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- 6. Towards Loss of Estate. Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Towards funeral expenses. Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 8 8. Towards Medical expenses Rs.1,339/- Rs.1,339/- Total Rs. 19,79,379/- Rs. 20,96,459/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.19,79,379/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,96.459/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.19,79,379/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,17,080/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, this Court pass the following order.:- (i) The appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is disposed of. (ii) The cross-appeal filed by the respondents/claimants is is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. (iii) The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.24 14:53:52 +0530