1 2026:CGHC:15815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 600 of 2020 1 - Tata A.I.G. Genral Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, D B, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Reeta Kunwar D/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Navgai Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Main Road Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Riya Kumari D/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Navgai Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Main Road Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shivam Singh S/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Navgai Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Main Road Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rahul Singh S/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.08 11:03:55 +0530 2 Navgai Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Main Road Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anil Dhobi S/o Ramnewaj Dhobi, R/o Village Sarna, Post Keshri, Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mahendra Kumar Markam S/o Sukhram Markam, R/o Village Gaina, Post Keshari, Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents No. 5 and 6 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate MAC No. 120 of 2020 1 - Ritakunwar D/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 26 Years Permanent R/o Village - Navgai, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj At Present R/o Main Road, Amandon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Riya Kumari D/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 23 Years Permanent R/o Village - Navgai, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj At Present R/o Main Road, Amandon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shivam Singh S/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 21 Years Permanent R/o Village - Navgai, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj At Present R/o Main Road, Amandon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Rahul Singh S/o Late Janak Singh Aged About 18 Years Permanent R/o Village - Navgai, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj At Present R/o Main Road, Amandon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Anil Dhobi S/o Ramnewaj Dhobi, R/o Village - Sarna, Post - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver ), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahendra Kumar Markam S/o Sukhram Markam, R/o Village - Gaina, Post - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Owner ), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Head Office - Peninshula Business Park Tower A - 15th Floor, G. K. Road, Lower Pairal Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013, Branch Office First Floor 106 - 7, Walford Ozone, Bilaspur Road, Near Fafadih Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.04.2026 1. Since both of these appeals arise out of a common accident and common question of law and fact is involved in both of these 4 appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The challenge in both of these appeals has been made to the impugned award dated 23/11/2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 95/2018 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of Durgawati and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/600/2020, would submit that the offending vehicle was falsely implanted in order to recover compensation from the Insurance Company as there is also a delay in filing FIR, as such, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/120/2020, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side as the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 4,500/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. 8,620/- as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident, moreover, the Claims Tribunal has made 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased but it ought to have made 1/4th deduction. Similarly, the Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have 5 granted Rs. 44,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,76,000/- under loss of consortium, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the owner and driver in both the appeals, would support the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. MAC/600/2020 :- 7. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the part of the impugned award whereby the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Though the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the offending vehicle has falsely been implanted but no evidence has been led by them in this regard. The accident occurred on 13/04/2018 and though FIR was lodged on 11/08/2018, however, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 13/08/2018 and the driver of the offending vehicle namely Anil Dhobi was charged with offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and he was tried before the jurisdictional criminal court. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan1, the ground of delay in lodging FIR cannot be a sole ground for rejecting claim application filed by the claimants also on the ground as it subsequently culminated into charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of 1 AIR 2011 1228 6 compensation upon the Insurance Company. I do not find any merit in this appeal. MAC/120/2020 :- 9. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 4,500/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. 8,620/- as per the minimum wage notification prevailing at the time of the accident. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has made 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased but it ought to have made 1/4th deduction. Similarly, the Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have granted Rs. 44,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,76,000/- under loss of consortium. Thus, this Court is re-computing the compensation as stated below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 8,620/- x 12 = Rs. 1,03,440/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 13,500/- = Rs. 67,500/- (+) 25% i.e. Rs. 25,860/- = Rs. 1,29,300/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 22,500/- = Rs. 45,000/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs. 32,325/- = Rs. 96,975/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs. 6,30,000/- (x) 14 = Rs. 13,57,650/- 5. Loss of Consortium NIL Rs. 44,000/- x 4 = 7 Rs. 1,76,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 6,60,000/- Rs. 15,63,650/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,63,650/-. Hence, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 9,03,650/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 22/10/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, MAC/120/2020 is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above and the impugned award is modified to that extent whereas MAC/600/2020 is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet