1 2026:CGHC:14618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 449 of 2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (N.A. No. 3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Girja Bai Netam Wd/o Late Mahavir Netam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli), Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Priti Netam D/o Late Mahavir Netam Aged About 16 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Girja Bai Netam Wd/o Late Mahavir Netam, R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli), Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Priyanka Netam D/o Late Mahavir Netam Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Girja Bai Netam Wd/o Late Mahavir Netam, R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli), Police Station Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rakesh Verma (Rajput) S/o Manharan Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jota Police Station Pathariya District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Diver Of The Vehicle Car No. C.G. 10 P 3090), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Maksudan Prasad Sahu S/o Shobharam Sahu R/o Village Basha Police Station Sipat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Owner Of Car No. C.G. 10p - 3090)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 295 of 2019 1 - Smt. Girja Bai Netam W/o Late Mahaveer Netam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli) Police Station Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 2 - Pritee Netam D/o Late Mahaveer Netam Aged About 16 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Girja Bai Netam W/o Late Mahaveer Netam, R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli) Police Station Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Priyanka Netam D/o Late Mahaveer Netam Aged About 12 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Girja Bai Netam W/o Late Mahaveer Netam, R/o Village Guma (Bitkuli) Police Station Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Rakesh Verma (Rajput) S/o Manharan Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jota, Police Station Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver, Car No. - Cg-10 P-3090), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Maksudan Prasad Sahu S/o Shobha Ram Sahu R/o Village Basha, Police Station Sipat, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner, Car No. - Cg- 10 P-3090), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Division Manager, Division Office Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- (Insurer Company, Car No. - Cg- 10 P-3090), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Insurance Company : Ms. Suchi Ramteke, Advocate on behalf of Mr. BN Nande, Advocate For Claimants : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AK Yadav, Advocate For owner and driver : None in two rounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 27.03.2025 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the question of facts and law involved and being arising out of a common incident, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 3 2. MAC-449-2019 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 22.11.2018, passed in Claim Case No.56/2017 by 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG), whereby the claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.8,76,400/- have been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Mahaveer Netam, which amount is held to be payable by the Insurance Company. Whereas, MAC-295-2019 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the said amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that in the present case the vehicle in question has wrongly been implanted and, as such, the involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would support learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company and finding to that regard need not to be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. Further, learned counsel also submits that that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. 4 Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which ought to be Rs.6,289/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Even otherwise, no amount towards loss of consortium for claimants No.02 & 03 (minor daughters of the deceased) has been awarded by the learned Claims tribunal, for which they are entitled too. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the present case, after perusal of the record it is quite clear that though the insurance company took the plea that the vehicle in question has wrongly been implanted in their written statement, but no evidence has been led to support the same or to demonstrate the fact that the vehicle in question has wrongly been implanted in the present accident and, therefore, the said plea has not been proved and cannot be accepted more particularly when the learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledged trial has found that the vehicle in question bearing No.CG- 10-P-3090 involved in the accident on the date of occurrence and, due to which, deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, for the aforementioned reasons, the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed being meritless. 5 7. So far as, appeal of the claimants is concerned, true it is that learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.4500/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.6289/- PM and, even no amount on the head of loss of consortium for claimants No.02 & 03 (minor daughters of the deceased) has been awarded by the learned Claims tribunal, for which they are entitled too. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.4500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/- Rs.6289 x 12 = Rs.75,468/- 2 Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 21,600 = Rs.75,600/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 30,187 = Rs. 1,05,655/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (Rs.25,200) = Rs. 50,400/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.35,218) = Rs.70,437/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = (x) 16 = Rs. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Rs. 8,06,400/- 11,26,992/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of spousal Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium (for claimants No.02 & 03) NIL Rs.80,000/- (i.e. Rs.40,000/- X 2) Total Rs.8,76,400/- Rs.12,76,992/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,76,992/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,76,400/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,00,592/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days 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 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, MAC-449-2019 filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed, whereas MAC-295-2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if