1 2026:CGHC:16129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 224 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle) ... Appellant versus 1 - Nicolas Minj, S/o. Pitrus Minj, Aged About 52 Years, Caste - Uraonv, R/o. Village - Jamtoli, Remteroad Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Priyanka Minj, D/o. Nicolas Minj, Aged About 23 Years, Caste - Uraonv, R/o. Village - Jamtoli, Remteroad Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nishant Minj, S/o. Nicolas Minj, Aged About 21 Years, Caste - Uraonv, R/o. Village - Jamtoli, Remteroad Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Neha Minj, D/o. Nicolas Minj, Aged About 19 Years, Caste - Uraonv, R/o. Village - Jamtoli, Remteroad Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ……..(Claimants) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.08 18:33:29 +0530 2 5 - Vishwnath Yadav, S/o. Pancham Ram Yadav, Aged About 24 Years, Caste - Mahkul, Resident Village - Dugdugia, Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil - Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ……..(Driver) 6 - Smt. Manta Agrawal, W/o. Pankaj Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Village - Jain Mandir Road, Kunkuri, Thana And Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. …….(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.04.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Additional Claims Tribunal of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, by which the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.54,52,279/- has been fastened upon the insurance company. 3 2. Mr. Shashank Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company, would firstly submit that wife of appellant/claimant No.1 has died and since the appellant No.1 was earning at that time, therefore, he was not dependent and, as such, he was not entitled for compensation. Secondly, in gross salary vide Ex.A-14, medical allowance, tribal area allowance and stagnation allowance ought to have been deducted while computing the monthly income, therefore, it will be reduced suitably from the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Nitesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 4 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the appellant/ insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the first question is concerned, the only defence taken in the written statement is that all the appellants were not dependent upon the deceased, but no evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first ground raised on behalf of the insurance company and even otherwise, the appellant No.1 is husband and appellants No. 2 to 4 4 are sons & daughter of the deceased and, as such, they are dependent upon the deceased. The second ground raised is that tribal area allowance, medical allowance and stagnation allowance must be deducted from the salary while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, but this ground is surprisingly not taken in the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge