1 CGHC010202472024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1218 of 2024 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Head Office, E-8 Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Bandi Sodi W/o Late Hirma Sodi Aged About 50 Years R/o Motguda Kerlapal, P.S. Kerlapal, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 2 - Somlu Sodi S/o Late Hirma Sodi Aged About 35 Years R/o Motguda Kerlapal, P.S. Kerlapal, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 3 - Deepak Kumar Sodi S/o Late Hirma Sodi Aged About 33 Years R/o Motguda Kerlapal, P.S. Kerlapal, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Praveen Kumar Sodi S/o Late Hirma Sodi Aged About 29 Years R/o Motguda Kerlapal, P.S. Kerlapal, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Anjaiah S/o Chinnaiah Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Medaram SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.09.26 15:15:11 +0530 2 P.S. Dudipally, District Nalgonda Telangana (Driver) 6 - Gongadala Saiduulu S/o Mallaiah R/o 4-250/2, Opposite Mdo Office, Chillakallu, Jaggayapeta, Andhra Pradesh (Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 4 : None For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Notice awaited Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (26.09.2026) 1. This is an admitted appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the order of this Court dated 25.06.2024 has already been complied with. The appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation only. Since the liability is admitted to be upon the Insurance Company, notice to respondents No. 5 and 6 may be dispensed with. 3. In view of above submission, notice to Respondents No.5 & 6 stands dispensed with. 4. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the appeal is heard finally. 5. This is an insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 23.02.2024 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No.61/2023. 3 6. The gist of claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on 11.03.2021, when deceased Hirma Sodi was returning Motguda, the driver of Trailor bearing registration number AP 16 TE-3757, Respondent No.5 herein namely Anjaiah drove the Trailor rashly and negligently and hit Hirma Sodi due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment. On the report of the incident being lodged at concerned Police Station, crime was registered. 7. The claimants (respondents 1 to 4) who are the wife and sons of the deceased had filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.28,80,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, vide impugned award, awarded total compensation of Rs.23,14,672/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased (respondents 1 to 4) for their irreparable loss, in which, the Insurance Company has been held liable for payment of compensation, against which this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. Even if the deceased is assumed to be a skilled worker, his monthly income as on the date of accident, i.e., 11.03.2021, ought to have been assessed as Rs. 10,390/- as per the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, the Claims Tribunal has made deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, whereas it ought to have been 1/3rd, as the claimants/respondents No. 2 to 4 are major 4 sons. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be reduced. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant, considered his rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The Tribunal, while holding the death of Hirma Sodi to be accidental, has assessed his age as 50 years. The date of accident is 11.03.2021. On the basis that he was engaged in agriculture and carpentry work, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs. 15,000/-. Future prospects at the rate of 25% has been added. Since there were 4 claimants, deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses has been made, multiplier of 13 has been applied and under the conventional heads, Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- each to all the four claimants towards loss of consortium has been awarded. 11. The first argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side and the same deserves to be reduced. The claimants, on the basis of their pleadings, had adduced evidence before the Tribunal and on the basis thereof, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Hirma Sodi as Rs. 15,000/-. The said evidence of the claimants was not challenged by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessment of income at Rs. 15,000/- by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and no interference is warranted therein. 12. The second argument of the Insurance Company is that deduction towards personal and living expenses ought 5 to be 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. It is pertinent to mention that there are total 4 claimants, comprising of wife and three major sons. There was no pleading raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the three major sons were not residing with the deceased or that they are married and living separately. Therefore, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses made by the Tribunal upon finding 4 claimants on the basis of evidence is also just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham