1 2026:CGHC:18358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1848 of 2019 ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. .......Insurer --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav, W/o. Kamta Ram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o. Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamta Ram Yadav, S/o. Fulsingh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. …….Claimants 3 - Chintu Ram Nishad, S/o. Thanwar Ram Nishad, R/o. Village Borid, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ......Driver. 4 - Ashok Sahu, S/o. Manglu Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Village Borid, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ......Owner. --- Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.22 16:41:56 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate & MAC No. 1770 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav, W/o. Kamtaram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation House Wife, R/o. Mathpuraina, Thana Tikrapara, Post - Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamtaram Yadav, S/o. Fulsingh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Mathpuraina, Thana Tikrapara, Post - Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ....(Claimants). ---Appellants Versus 1 - Chinturam Nishad, S/o. Thanvarram Nishad, Occupation - Tractor Driver, R/o. Village Borid, Thana - Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District – Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver) 2 - Ashok Sahu, S/o. Mangalu Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation - Agriculture And Tractor Owner. R/o. Village - Borid, Thana - Fingeshwar, Tahisl & District - Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh)…...(Owner). 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Commercial Bhawan Devendra Nagar Mod, Raipur, Tahsil & District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer). --- Respondents 3 For Appellants : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.764/2017, the insurance company has preferred MAC No.1848/2019 seeking exoneration from the liability to pay the amount of compensation, whereas the claimants have preferred MAC No.1770/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that for the death of a 10 years old boy, only Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation. He would further submit that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Thangavel & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State 4 Transport Corporation Limited 1 , the amount of compensation should be awarded Rs. 8,70,000/-. 4. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the owner of the offending vehicle also did not have a valid permit to ply the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and, as such, the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 5. So far as the appeal of the insurance company is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal, after having considered the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the insurance company has failed to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid & effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the owner of the offending vehicle also did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company has no merit and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 6. So far as the appeal of the claimants is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Thangavel (supra) has awarded Rs. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1649 5 8,70,000/- for death of a 10 years old boy; therefore, this Court is also inclined to award the compensation of Rs. 8,70,000/- as here in this case also, a 10 years old boy was died in the accident. 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,70,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,70,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 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 the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok