Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27375
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Kailash Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Naik – Respondent
MAC No. 1622 of 2019 | MAC No. 1678 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Keshav Dewangan
For the Respondents: Raj Awasthi
The court held that compensation must be reassessed based on official minimum wage notifications and that an insurance company cannot escape liability for a breach of policy (such as lack of a valid permit) without providing cogent evidence to prove such breach.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Assessment of Income - Minimum Wages - The monthly income of the deceased should be assessed in accordance with the prevailing Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner of the respective state. (Para 7)
(B) Insurance Liability - Breach of Policy - Valid Permit - A plea by an insurance company that a vehicle was operated without a valid permit constitutes a breach of policy and must be supported by cogent evidence; failure to lead evidence on this point prevents the company from being exonerated from liability. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants should be enhanced based on minimum wages and whether the insurance company can be exonerated from liability due to the alleged absence of a valid permit.
Order on Board
24.08.2026
1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed 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 Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 13.05.2019 in Claim Case No. 552/2017 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 1622/2019 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1678/2019 is seeking exoneration from the liability imposed upon it by the learned Claims Tribunal..
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased Rs. 8000/- per month (for four month) which should be Rs. 10,000/- per month (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that under the head of consortium amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit on the date of the accident and, therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to satisfy the award. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 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 submissions 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, although the Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence to establish the said fact. The learned Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the Insurance Company, as the alleged breach of the policy condition on account of absence of a valid permit was not proved by any cogent evidence. No valid or substantial ground has been made out warranting interference with the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.
7. So far as the appeal preferred by the appellant/claimants are concerned, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased to be 8000/- 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 10000/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be reassessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under the other conventional heads. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation by granting the amounts to which the claimants are legally entitled under those heads.
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 Sethi , 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2(2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.3(2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-
[[IMG_1]]
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
