1 2026:CGHC:15680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 53 of 2021 1 - Pawan Sai Son of Amarsai Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Tilaidand, Police Station - Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shanti Bai Wife of Pawansai Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Tilaidand, Police Station- Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar Son of Late Heeralal Aged About 18 Years Resident If Tilaidand, Police Station- Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Prabhu Bhuiya Son Of Kanhaiya Bhuiya Resident Of Village- Binauka Ward No. 10, Police Station - Manatu, Post- Kasmar, Tahsil- Udaypur, District- Palamu (Jharkhand), District : Palamu, Jharkhand 2 - Mahamaya Associates Address Second Floor No. S.F. 12, Shyam Plaza Pandri Bus Stand, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.20 18:03:57 +0530 2 Second Floor, Radha Building, Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jamuna Bai Wife of Late Heeraram, Aged About 40 Years Resisdent Of Tilaidand, Police Station- Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anita Kumari Daughter of Late Heeraram Aged About 16 Years Resident Of Tilaidand, Police Station- Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Amrita Kumari Daughter of Late Heeraram Aged About 14 Years Resident Of Tilaidand, Police Station- Bango, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 51 of 2021 1 - Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Radha Building, Bajrang Market, G Road, Raipur Throgh Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, About Axix Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Pawan Saay S/o Amarsai Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Shanti Bai W/o Pawan Saay Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Heeralal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Jamuna Bai Wd/o Late Heeraram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Anita Kumari D/o Late Heeraram Aged About 16 Years Respondent No. 5, Is Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Namely Jamuna Bai, Respondent No. 04, R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Amrita Kumari D/o Heeraram Aged About 14 Years Respondent No. 6, Is Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Namely Jamuna Bai, Respondent No. 04, R/o Village Tileedand, P. S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Prabhu Bhuiya S/o Shri Kanhai Bhuiya R/o Village Binauka Ward No. 10, P. S. Manatu, Post Kasmar, Tehsil Udaipur, District Palamu, Jharkhand.........Driver 8 - Mahamaya Associates Second Floor, No. S. F. 12, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand Raipur Chhattisgarh .........Owner --- Respondent(s) MAC No.53 of 2021 For Appellants/claimants : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.2/owner : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3/insurer : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.4 to 6/claimants : Shri T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1/driver : None MAC No.51 of 2021 For Appellant/insurer : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/claimants : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondents No.4 to 6/claimants : Shri T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.8/owner : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.7/driver : None 4 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. As both the appeals arise out of a common award and same accident, they are being heard and decided by this common order. Parties are referred to in this order according to their status in the claim applications. 2. MAC No.51 of 2021 is 昀椀led by the insurance company, whereas MAC No.53 of 2021 is 昀椀led by the claimants. 3. Both the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) call in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the common award dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Additional Tribunal, Katghora of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.38 of 2018 and Claim Case No.47 of 2018. 4. Aforesaid two claim applications were 昀椀led by claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Heeraram in an accident that occurred on 5.1.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG 04 LS 1446 driven by respondent Prabhu Bhuiya, owned by respondent Mahamaya Associates and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. The factum of accident and death of Heeraram in the said accident is not in dispute. 5 5. As per the claim applications 昀椀led under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was an agriculturist, vegetable vendor and was also engaged in dairy farming and was earning total Rs.15,000 per month. Total compensation of Rs.60,50,000 was claimed against the driver, owner and insurer of the o昀昀ending vehicle. 6. No written statement was 昀椀led by the driver and owner of the o昀昀ending vehicle and they remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. 7. Both the claim applications were resisted by the insurer of the o昀昀ending vehicle taking a plea that the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive the o昀昀ending vehicle and, therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respective parties led their evidence and ultimately the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,20,875 as compensation, however, it found that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, exonerated the insurance company, but, directed the insurance company to 昀椀rst pay the compensation and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle. 8. MAC No.51 of 2021 昀椀led by the insurance company is only on the ground that though the insurance company was exonerated, the Claims Tribunal fell in error in passing the order of pay and recover. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that there is fundamental breach of the insurance policy 6 as the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle was not holding a valid and e昀昀ective driving licence. Despite of the insurance company being exonerated, the pay and recover order was passed which requires to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants in both the appeals support the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for the owner submits that no cross objection or independent appeal has been 昀椀led on behalf of the owner of the o昀昀ending vehicle. 11. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is liable to be rejected in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297. Thus, the appeal 昀椀led by the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. This leads this Court to second point for determination as to whether just compensation has been awarded to the claimants. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in the instant appeals submit that the amount of compensation is on lower side. The deceased was an agriculturist, vegetable vendor and was also engaged in dairy farming. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.15,000. Hence, suitable enhancement in the compensation may be made. 7 14. Learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for the owner submit that no evidence was brought on record to prove the profession and income of the deceased. Thus, the 昀椀nding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 15. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits that in the subject accident in which Heeraram died one another person had also died in which compensation was awarded by the same Claims Tribunal, however, no pay and recover order was passed and the liability was fastened upon the insurance company against which the insurance company had already 昀椀led an appeal bearing MAC No.1698 of 2019. 16. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 17. The date of accident is 5.1.2018. The deceased was aged about 43 years. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist, vegetable vendor and was also engaged in dairy business. Though they have pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.15,000, however no prudent and cogent evidence in this regard was brought on record by them. From the record, it appears that aged parents, wife and three children were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.10,000 can be safely taken as monthly income of the deceased. 8 18. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.10,000 x 12) 1,20,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,20,000 x 25% Future Prospects = Rs.30,000; Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.30,000 = Rs.1,50,000) 1,50,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,50,000 / 4 = Rs.37,500; Rs.1,50,000 – Rs.37,500 = Rs.1,12,500) 1,12,500 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,12,500 x 14 = Rs.15,75,000) 15,75,000 5 Funeral Expenses 15,000 6 Loss of Estate 15,000 7 Spousal Consortium to Wife 40,000 8 Parental and Filial Consortium (2 Parents + 1 Son + 2 Daughters = 5) (Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000) 2,00,000 Total Compensation = 18,45,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 14,20,875 Enhancement in Compensation = 4,24,125 9 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claimants of the instant two appeals are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.4,24,125. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 昀椀ling of the instant appeals, i.e., 29.1.2021 till 昀椀nal payment of the enhanced compensation. The order of the Claims Tribunal with regard to pay and recover is maintained. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit being made by the insurance company, learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the amount among the claimants of the instant two appeals. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. Consequently, MAC No.51 of 2021 昀椀led by the insurance company is dismissed and MAC No.53 of 2021 昀椀led by the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modi昀椀ed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal