1 CGHC010230812018 2026:CGHC:29614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1382 of 2018 Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Insurer Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G./28/c/0143, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jugari Bai W/o W/o Makhanjlal Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Risda, Post Risda, Tahsil And Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhat­ tisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandeep Kumar S/o S/o Sukhiram Dhruw Aged About 26 Years R/o Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ............Driver Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G./28/ c/0143, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o S/o Indra Kumar Thakur R/o Village Bortakala, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Another Address- Indra Kumar Thakur, Ward No. 3, Near Saroj Kirana, Mannadol, Tifra Bilaspur, Chhattis­ garh. ...............Owner Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G. /28/c/ 0143, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 338 of 2019 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:2026.07.15 Smt. Jugari Bai W/o Makhan Lal Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village -17:03:24 +0530 Risda, Tahsil And Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2

1 - Sandeep Kumar S/o Suhiram Dhruw Aged About 26 Years R/o Champa Thana Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offend­ ing Vehicle Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G. 28/c./0143). (Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o Indra Kumar Thakur R/o Village - Bortarkala, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Possible - Address Indra Kumar Thakur, Ward No. 3, Near Saroj Kirana Mannadol Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G.28/ c./0143). (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Through 4th Floor Maruti Heights G.E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (In­ surer Of The Offencing Vehilce Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G. 28/c./0143). (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Insurance Com­ : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate pany For Appellant-Claimants : Mr, A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being dis­ posed by this common judgment.

2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi­ cles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 25.04.2018 in Claim Case No. 561/2016 passed by the Addi­ tional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 338/2019 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1382/2018 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the AMACT. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 5000/- per month (for 3 four month) which should be Rs. 6,000/- per month (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Moreover, the Claims Tri­ bunal has erred in awarding the less compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, and attendant less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced and even under the heads of transportation expenses, special diet, loss of amenities & en­ joyment compensation has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded.

4. learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the com­ pensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 25.04.2018 is on higher side, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of the claimants deserves to be dismissed while making deduction in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub­ missions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the appeal preferred by the respondent- Insurance Company is concerned, no valid or substantial ground has been made out war­ ranting interference with the award passed by the learned Claims Tri­ bunal. On the contrary, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the claimant deserves enhancement. 7. So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the claimant's monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and awarded compensation towards loss of earning for a period of four months. However, in the opinion of this Court, having re­ gard to the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been assessed at Rs.6,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of loss of earn­ ing is also liable to be taken as six months. Accordingly, the claimant is 4

entitled to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000 × 6 months) towards loss of earning. Further, the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffer­ ing and attendant charges deserves enhancement. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the heads of transportation expenses, special diet, and loss of amenities, which have not been adequately awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 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 Sethi1, 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. Heads Compensation Compensation No awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Court 1. Income for loss of 5000x4=20000 (for 6000x6= 36,000/-Future earning four months) 2. Medical Expenses 3,14,000 3,14,000 3. Pain and suffering 5000 25,000/- 4. Attendant 5000 10,000 5. Special Diet NIL 5000 6. Transporting Ex­ NIL 2000 penses 7. Amenities NIL 5000 8. Loss of Grievous NIL 10000 Injury 9. Loss of future medi­ NIL 20000 cal expenses Total 3,44,400/- 4,27,000/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,44,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,27,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,44,400/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.

1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 82600/-. The concerned respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company is di­ rected to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months 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, the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.338/2019 is al­ lowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as in­ dicated herein-above. The appeal of the Insurance company i.e. MAC No.1382/2018 is dismissed finding no merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti

1 CGHC010230812018 2026:CGHC:29614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1382 of 2018 Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Insurer Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G./28/c/0143, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jugari Bai W/o W/o Makhanjlal Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Risda, Post Risda, Tahsil And Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhat­ tisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandeep Kumar S/o S/o Sukhiram Dhruw Aged About 26 Years R/o Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ............Driver Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G./28/ c/0143, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o S/o Indra Kumar Thakur R/o Village Bortakala, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Another Address- Indra Kumar Thakur, Ward No. 3, Near Saroj Kirana, Mannadol, Tifra Bilaspur, Chhattis­ garh. ...............Owner Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C. G. /28/c/ 0143, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 338 of 2019 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:2026.07.15 Smt. Jugari Bai W/o Makhan Lal Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village -17:03:24 +0530 Risda, Tahsil And Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2

1 - Sandeep Kumar S/o Suhiram Dhruw Aged About 26 Years R/o Champa Thana Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offend­ ing Vehicle Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G. 28/c./0143). (Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o Indra Kumar Thakur R/o Village - Bortarkala, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Possible - Address Indra Kumar Thakur, Ward No. 3, Near Saroj Kirana Mannadol Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G.28/ c./0143). (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Through 4th Floor Maruti Heights G.E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (In­ surer Of The Offencing Vehilce Sawaraj Majada Bearing Registration No. C.G. 28/c./0143). (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Insurance Com­ : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate pany For Appellant-Claimants : Mr, A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being dis­ posed by this common judgment.

2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi­ cles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 25.04.2018 in Claim Case No. 561/2016 passed by the Addi­ tional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 338/2019 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1382/2018 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the AMACT. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 5000/- per month (for 3 four month) which should be Rs. 6,000/- per month (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Moreover, the Claims Tri­ bunal has erred in awarding the less compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, and attendant less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced and even under the heads of transportation expenses, special diet, loss of amenities & en­ joyment compensation has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded.

4. learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the com­ pensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 25.04.2018 is on higher side, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of the claimants deserves to be dismissed while making deduction in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub­ missions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the appeal preferred by the respondent- Insurance Company is concerned, no valid or substantial ground has been made out war­ ranting interference with the award passed by the learned Claims Tri­ bunal. On the contrary, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the claimant deserves enhancement. 7. So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the claimant's monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and awarded compensation towards loss of earning for a period of four months. However, in the opinion of this Court, having re­ gard to the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been assessed at Rs.6,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of loss of earn­ ing is also liable to be taken as six months. Accordingly, the claimant is 4

entitled to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000 × 6 months) towards loss of earning. Further, the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffer­ ing and attendant charges deserves enhancement. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the heads of transportation expenses, special diet, and loss of amenities, which have not been adequately awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 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 Sethi1, 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. Heads Compensation Compensation No awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Court 1. Income for loss of 5000x4=20000 (for 6000x6= 36,000/-Future earning four months) 2. Medical Expenses 3,14,000 3,14,000 3. Pain and suffering 5000 25,000/- 4. Attendant 5000 10,000 5. Special Diet NIL 5000 6. Transporting Ex­ NIL 2000 penses 7. Amenities NIL 5000 8. Loss of Grievous NIL 10000 Injury 9. Loss of future medi­ NIL 20000 cal expenses Total 3,44,400/- 4,27,000/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,44,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,27,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,44,400/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.

1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 82600/-. The concerned respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company is di­ rected to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months 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, the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.338/2019 is al­ lowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as in­ dicated herein-above. The appeal of the Insurance company i.e. MAC No.1382/2018 is dismissed finding no merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti