[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Padma Nayak on 8 May, 2026
1
Digitally 2026:CGHC:21531
SAIFAN signed by
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 701 of 2020
1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited By Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Opposite Bhadoriya Bhavan, Court Road, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager
Suit Legal Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suit Legal
Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp.
Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Padma Nayak Wd/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 30 Years
R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Chinta Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 21 Years R/o
Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Arso Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 19 Years R/o
Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Aasman Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 17 Years
Through Their Natural Guardian Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt.
Padma Nayak, R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Gomti Nayak D/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 14 Years Through
Their Natural Guardian Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Padma
Nayak, R/o Kodagudapara, Village Khotlapal, P.S. Karpavand, District
Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
6 - Banshiram Baghel S/o Baisakhuram Baghel Aged About 22 Years
Occupation Truck Driver, Through Yashwant Nahata, S/o Deepak
Nahata, Caste Jain, R/o Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur, District Basar
Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
2
7 - Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata Aged About 34 Years Caste -
Jain, R/o Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
(Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WITH
MAC No. 874 of 2020
1 - Smt. Padma Nayak Wd/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 38 Years
R/o Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Chinta Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 21 Years R/o
Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Arso Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 19 Years R/o
Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Aasman Nayak S/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 18 Years R/o
Kodagudapara Village Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Miss Gomati Nayak D/o Late Samjo Nayak Aged About 14 Years
Appellant No. 05, Is Minor Therefore Represented Through Nature
Guardian Smt. Padma Nayak (Mother), R/o Kodagudapara Village
Khotalpal, P. S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---Appellants
Versus
1 - Banshiram Baghel S/o Baisakhu Ram Baghel Aged About 22 Years
R/o C/o Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata R/o Motitalabpara,
Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ...............(Driver Of Vehicle),
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o
Yashwant Nahata S/o Deepak Nahata R/o Motitalabpara, Jagdalpur
District Bastar Chhattisgarh ...............(Owner Of Vehicle), District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch
Office Opposite Bhadouriya Bhawan, Court Road Jagdalpur District
Bastar Chhattisgarh .................(Insurance Co.), District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Claimants : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate
For Insurance Company : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
08.05.2026
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the question of the facts and
law involved and being arising out of a common award, 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.
2. MAC-874-2020 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") by the Claimants
seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the
impugned award dt. 03.12.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded a total sum of Rs.10,47,500/- as compensation for the death
of Samjo Nayak, who died in a road accident took place on 15.09.2018.
Whereas, MAC-701-2020 has also been filed under Section 173 of the
Act of 1988 by the Insurance Company, challenging the same awarded
dt. 03.12.2019, whereby liability to pay compensation to the claimants
has been fastened upon them.
3. Learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that learned
Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in
the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of
deceased as Rs.6000/- per month which should be Rs.8100/- as per
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Even on the head of loss of
consortium less amount has been awarded, which ought to have been
Rs.40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- Therefore, the instant appeal be
allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may
suitably be enhanced. .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
would submit that the offending vehicle was wrongly implanted in the
accident in question in order to obtain compensation, as the same was
not involved in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the amount of compensation. Thus, the impugned award is
liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
Appeal of the Insurance Company:
6. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show
that the Insurance Company has neither took any plea before the
Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was not involved in the
accident in question or was wrongly implanted in order to obtain
compensation nor adduced any evidence with regard to the same.
Therefore, the said ground cannot be entertained at this stage and, as
such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay
compensation upon the Insurance Company. I do not find any illegality
or perversity in the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the
appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal of the Claimants:
7. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
deceased to be Rs.6000/-, 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.8100/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed
at relevant time). Even on the head of loss of consortium less amount
has been awarded, which ought to have been Rs.40,000/- x 5 =
Rs.2,00,000/-.
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 Rs.6000/- x 12 = Rs.8100/- x 12 =
Rs.72,000/- Rs.97,200/-
2 Future Prospect (+) 25% (i.e. (+) 25% (i.e.
Rs.18,000/-) Rs.24,300/-)
= Rs.90,000/- = Rs.1,21,500/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. (-) 1/4 (i.e.
Rs.22,500) = Rs. Rs.30,375/-) =
67,500/- Rs.91,125/-
4. Multiplier (x) 13 = (x) 13 =
Rs.8,77,500/- Rs.11,84,625/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,40,000/- Rs.40,000/- x 5 =
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.10,47,500/- Rs.14,14,625/-
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.10,47,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.14,14625/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,47,500/-,
the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of
Rs.3,67,125/-. 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.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. MAC-874-2020
is allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC-
701-2020 is dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the
extent as indicated herein-above.
sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
s@if
