[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sudhari Bai on 20 April, 2026
1
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
2026:CGHC:17769
ANKIT
KUMAR
SINGH
AFR
Digitally signed
by ANKIT
KUMAR SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 928 of 2020
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ghadi
Chowk, Raipur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
Present Address Banaras Road, Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Police
Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Sudhari Bai W/o Balindar, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village
Kasra (Bhainsamuda) Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District
Korea Chhattisgarh.
2. Balindar (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 27-11-
2025.
3. Ramnandan Prasad S/o Late Pudeni Prasad, Aged About 62 Years,
Occupation Driver , R/o Village Bedoli, Police Station Bhagwanganj,
District Patna (Bihar), Present R/o New Mass Sawana Raipura, Police
Station And Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Baijanti Devi Through Janki Roadlines, Transport Nagar Bilaspur Road
Ranwabhat, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate.
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Ghadi
Chowk, Raipur, Police Station Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Present Address - Banaras Road, Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Police
Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagmaniya, W/o Ramesh, Aged About 51 Years;
2. Ku. Ravina, D/o Late Ramesh, Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through
Her Mother Bhagmaniya, Wd/o Late Ramesh (Respondent No. 1),
Both are R/o Village - Ashola, Police Station And Tahsil - Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
3. Ramnandan Prasad, S/o Late Fudesh Prasad, Aged About 41 Years,
Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Beduli, Police Station And Tahsil -
Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Baijanti Devi, D/o Lalan Kumar, Aged About 43 Years, Occupation
Transporter, R/o C/o Janki Roadlines, Transport Nagar Bilaspur Road
Ravatbhata Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner).
--- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent :- None.
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
20.04.2026
1. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in the
present two cases and they have arisen out of common accident,
though different claim cases, they have been clubbed together, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
2. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short "Act of 1988") have been preferred by the Insurance Company
against the impugned awards dated 13.01.2020 passed by the 1 st
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Cases
No.186/2018 & 123/2018, respectively, whereby Claims Tribunal
allowed the claimants' application and granted compensation to the
claimants along with the interest.
3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
would submit that though the offending vehicle was having the
national permit on the date of accident but, did not have the
authorization under Rule 87(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 (for short "Rules, 1989") and, therefore, the Insurance Company
may be exonerated to pay compensation to the claimants.
4. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in
MAC No.928 of 2020, would oppose the prayer made by learned
counsel for the Insurance Company and submit that since the
offending vehicle was registered in the State of Chhattisgarh and the
accident occurred within the State of Chhattisgarh, authorization
under Rule 87(3) of the Rules of 1989 is not required. Therefore,
appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed.
5. None for the claimants in MAC No. 978 of 2020, though served.
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein above and gone through the records
precisely.
7. True, it is that the national permit did not have an authorization as
required under Rule 87(3) of the Rules, 1989, but the Supreme Court
in the matter of Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance
Company Ltd.1 has clearly held that authorization fee was required to
be paid only when offending vehicle was moving out side the State
and held in paragraph 8 as under :-
"8. This Court has carefully gone through the permit
which is on record and the National Permit is certainly
valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required
to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of
Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck
caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in
the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent
company could not have repudiated the claim on such a
frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued by the
competent authority in Bihar and, therefore, there was no
requirement of paying authorization fee when the truck
was being used in the State of Bihar and as per the terms
and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee
was required to be paid only when the truck was moving
out of State of Bihar."
8. Coming to the facts of the present two cases in light of the principles
of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision,
since the offending vehicle in the present cases holding national
permit was moving in the State of Chhattisgarh itself and accident
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
occurred in the State of Chhattisgarh, the authorization under Rule
87(3) of the Rules, 1989 was not required. As such, the appeals of the
Insurance Company deserve to be and is hereby dismissed.
9. Also heard on Cross Objection filed by the claimants in MAC No. 928
of 2020.
10. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the claimant, would submit
that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of
deceased - Bhanu Pratap to the tune of ₹4,500/- which should be
6,000/- per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages
Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner,
Chhattisgarh. Furthermore, under the heads of consortium, funeral
expenses and loss of estate less amount has been awarded by the
Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the cross
objection of the claimant deserves to be allowed and the amount
may suitably be enhanced.
11. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimant
and submit that the compensation amount awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for interference.
12. The Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be
₹4,500/- however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the
deceased should be ₹6,000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at
relevant time) and ₹72,000/- per annum. Furthermore, the Claims
Tribunal has awarded less amount under the heads of consortium,
loss of estate, funeral expenses which is liable to be enhanced.
13. 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 Sethi2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors4, this Court is computing the
compensation as below:-
Sr. Heads Compensation awarded Compensation awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
No.
1. Income ₹4,500x12 = ₹ ₹6,000x12 = ₹72,000/-
54,000/-
2. Future (+) 40% = 21,600/- (+) 40% =28,800/-
Prospect Total=₹54,000+21,600= Total=₹72,000+28,800=
₹75,600/- ₹1,00,800/-
3. Multiplier (x) 18 = ₹13,60,800/- (x) 18 = ₹18,14,400/-
4. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹6,80,400/-; (-) ½ = ₹9,07,200/-;
₹13,60,800-6,80,400= ₹18,14,400-9,07,200=
₹6,80,400/- ₹9,07,200/-
5. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/- ₹18,000/-
6. Funeral ₹15,000/- ₹18,000/-
Expenses
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
4 (2018) 18 SCC 130
MAC No. 928 of 2020 & MAC No. 978 of 2020
7. Consortium ₹40,000/- ₹48,000/-
8. Total ₹7,50,400/- ₹9,91,200/-
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹7,50,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 928 of
2020 is enhanced to ₹9,91,200/-. Hence, after deducting the
amount of ₹7,50,400/-, the claimant is held to be entitled to an
additional amount of ₹2,40,800/-. The concerned respondent is
directed 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 @8% 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.
15. Accordingly, appeals of the Insurance Company are dismissed and
the Cross Objection filed by the claimant is allowed and the
impugned award in MAC No.928 of 2020 is modified to the extent
as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
