##PAGE1##

1

MAC No. 1140 of 2020

2026:CGHC:21947

ANKIT

KUMAR

SINGH NAFR

Digitally

signed by

ANKIT KUMAR

SINGH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 1140 of 2020

 IFFCO - TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Near ICICI

Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

1. Roopa Kesri W/o Umakant Kesri Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward

No. 32, Behind Lal Chandani Hospital, Jagman Chowk, Shivaji

Marg, Tikrapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.

2. Umakant Kesri S/o Ghanshyam Kesri, Aged About 58 Years, R/o

Ward No. 32, Behind Lal Chandani Hospital, Jagman Chowk,

Shivaji Marg, Tikrapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District

Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Lalit Wahane S/o Gulab Rao Wahane, Aged About 41 Years, R/o

Ambedkar Nagar, Behind Petrol Pump, Mungeli, P.S. Mungeli,

Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

4. Shrikant Govardhan S/o V.K. Goverdhan, Aged About 55 Years,

R/o Maharana Pratap Ward, Pendrakapa, P.S. Mungeli, Tahsil

And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

For Appellant :- Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate, appears on

behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 & :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate.

2

For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate.

2

MAC No. 1140 of 2020

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment On Board

11.05.2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the

appellant/Insurance Company, against the impugned award dated

07.01.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short

“Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 365/2018 whereby learned

Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and

awarded a sum of ₹29,02,501/- as compensation along with

interest for death of Nilesh Kesri, whereas, the cross objection has

been filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 herein, against

the said impugned award seeking enhancement in the

compensation amount.

2. Ms. Shrejal Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company, would submit that the award is on higher side as the

un-exhibited document relates to Income Tax Return for the year

of 2010-11, has been made the basis for assessing the income of

the deceased which should not have been taken as it has not been

proved in accordance with law. Further amount of compensation

awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not required to be enhanced

and, therefore, the cross objection of the claimants deserves to be

dismissed.

3

MAC No. 1140 of 2020

3. Mr. A.L. Singrouol, learned counsel for respondents No.1 &

2/claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred

in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the

present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has

not awarded the amount under the head of parental consortium,

which is liable to be awarded to the tune of ₹80,000/-. Therefore,

the cross objection filed by the claimants be allowed and the

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be

enhanced.

4. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for respondent No.3/driver of

the vehicle, would submit that the driver is not liable to pay the

compensation to the claimants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein above and gone through the records

meticulously.

6. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 09.04.2018 and at that time

for assessing the income of the deceased the Claims Tribunal has

made the basis of Income Tax Return of 2010-11 (unexhibited

document) as proof of monthly income of the deceased and on

account of which the monthly income of the deceased was to the

tune of ₹15,000/- per month at that time and added ₹5,000/-

while granting the award as increased income for last 8 years i.e.

from 2010 to 2018, meaning thereby ₹20,000/- has been taken as

4

MAC No. 1140 of 2020

monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident i.e.

09.04.2018, which appears to be correct and no