1 2026:CGHC:11011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 84 of 2022 1 - Komal Bai W/o Late Gorelal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Naktidih, Tahsil Champa Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandhya D/o Late Gorelal Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Komal Bai W/o Late Gorelal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Naktidih, Tahsil Champa Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Suraj Kumar S/o Late Gorelal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Naktidih, Tahsil Champa Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Gorelal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Naktidih, Tahsil Champa Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Premlal S/o Jalasaye Sao Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Knathipali, Police Station Sariya District Raigarh ........Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 13/u. F./5123 2 - Trinath Sadavarti S/o Sadavarti Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bade Nawapara, Baramkela, District Raigarh ........Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 13/u. F./5123 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shanti Palace, Near Sarla Villa, Chakradhar Nagar Chowk, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 4 - Sourin Bai W/o Gorelal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Naktidih, Tahsil Champa, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa 5 - Nagma D/o Gorelal Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Sourin Bai W/o Gorelal Aged About 45 Years, --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 378 of 2022 1 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shanti Palace, Near Sarla Villa, Chakradhar Nagar Chowk, Raigarh And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through T.P. Hub, Incharge United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Magarpara Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Sourin Bai W/o Late Gorelal Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Niktidih, Tahsil Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nagma D/o Late Gorelal Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Sourin Bai (Mother) Resident Of Village Niktidih Tahsil Champa P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Komal Bai W/o Late Gorelal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Niktidih, Tahsil Champa, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4 - Sandhya D/o Late Gorelal Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Komal Bai (Mother) R/o Village Niktidih, Tahsil Champa, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 5 - Suraj Kumar S/o Late Gorelal Mahilange Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Niktidih, Tahsil Champa, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 6 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Gorelal Mahilange Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Niktidih, Tahsil Champa, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 7 - Premlal S/o Jalsaye Sao Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kanthipali, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Driver) 8 - Trinath Sadavarti S/o Sadavarti Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bade Nawapara, Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondent(s) In MAC No.84 of 2022: For Appellant/s : Ms. Apurva Goyal, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. In MAC No.378 of 2022: For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 to 6 : Ms. Apurva Goyal, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate. Respondent No.8 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. In these appeals, the judgment and award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa in Claim Case No.48 of 2020 dated 9.12.2012 has been challenged. MAC No.84 of 2022 has been filed by first wife and her children for enhancement of compensation whereas, MAC No.378 of 2022 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as the quantum. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.2.2020, deceased – Gorelal alongwith his friends was returning to village Niktidih on a motorcycle and when they reached near Sabriyada Poultry Farm, an Alto Car coming from 4 the opposite direction dashed their motorcycle, resultantly, Gorelal sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. Claim Case No.48 of 2020 was filed by Sourin Bai (wife) and Nagma (daughter) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein Komal Bai (another wife of the deceased), daughter Sandhya and two major sons, namely Suraj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were impleaded as respondents. In claim petition, the claimants pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 49 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.18,60,000/-. The Insurance Company filed its reply and took a plea that the deceased was dependent on the income of the claimants; the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license; there was negligence on the part of both the rider of the motorcycle, and the driver of the Alto Car. Learned Tribunal framed the issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3. Ms. Apurva Goyal, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is at lower side. She would submit that in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wage matrix. She would submit that the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2020 was Rs.8,600/- per month, which should have been taken into consideration. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law while granting a fixed sum of Rs.77,000/- for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 4. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. 5 Goyal. He would submit that the second wife of the deceased, namely Sourin Bai and the major sons of the deceased would not fall within the category of the dependents. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased whereas, the learned Tribunal should have excluded second wife and the major children while applying deduction. It is also argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license on the date of the accident and an email sent by an Investigator has been placed on record as Annexure-A/2, which clearly establishes that the driving license seized by the police during the course of investigation was never issued in favour of its driver. It is also argued that a specific plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken and issue was also framed but the learned Tribunal erroneously held it not proved despite there was sufficient evidence. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 7. According to the provisions of Section 166(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased may move an application for grant of compensation arising out of an accident. 8. In the present case, Komal Bai is described as the first wife of Gorelal whereas, Sandhya, Suraj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar are their children. Further, Sourin Bai has been stated as the second wife and Nagma as her minor daughter. The Insurance Company has failed to dispute 6 these facts thus, it can safely held that Komal Bai, Sourin Bai and their children are legal representatives of the deceased. As the number of dependents was between four and six, the learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the contention made by Shri P.K. Tulsyan with regard to dependency and deduction appears to be misconceived. 9. With regard to the plea of contributory negligence, although such a plea was taken in the written statement but neither the Insurance Company nor the driver and owner of the offending vehicle adduced cogent evidence to prove this fact. The driver of the offending vehicle was not examined to establish that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly decided this issue as not proved. 10. It is pleaded in the reply to the claim petition filed by the Insurance Company that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was found fake. In this regard, an email dated 21.12.2021 has been placed on record as Annexure-A/2, stating that the particulars of driving license WB-4120070083570 were not available in the Sarathi Computer database. However, the said email is not admissible in the evidence as the Insurance Company has not moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record. This email is based on personal enquiry of the Investigator. No official from the concerned Regional Transport Office was examined to prove the fact that the license details were not available in official records, therefore, the contention made by Shri P.K. Tulsyan cannot be accepted. 7 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 12. Now coming to the submission made by Ms. Goyal with regard to enhancement of compensation. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is certainly at lower side. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in February, 2020 was Rs.8,600/- per month and in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while assessing the income of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal has granted a fixed sum of Rs.77,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium whereas, the claimants are entitled to separate compensation under these heads, namely Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium with enhancement of 10% after expiry of three years. The claimants are also entitled for compensation on head of future prospects. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,600 x 12 = Rs. 1,03,200/- 2. Future Prospect 10% (7,200/-) (72,000 + 7,200 = 79,200/- 25% - 25,800/- (1,03,200 + 25,800 = 1,29,000/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (19,800/-) (79,200 – 19,800 = 59,400/-) (-) 1/4 (32,250/-) (Rs.1,29,000-32,250) = Rs. 96,750/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. (59,400 x 11 = 6,53,400/-) (x) 11 = Rs. (96,750 x 11 = 10,64,250/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- 8 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000 x 6 = 2,64,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,30,400/- Rs. 13,61,250/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,30,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,61,250/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,30,400/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,30,850/-. As the learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi