BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (WRONGLY MENTIONED INSURANCE) vs MANOJ NIRMALKAR

1

CGHC010343862023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1711 of 2023
Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited (Wrongly
Mentioned Insurance) L. I. C. Building, Commercial Premises, First Floor,
Opposite Shayam Square Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, through - Authorized Signatory, For New India Assurance
Company Limited, Manager, T.P. Claim Hub, Rama Trade Centre, Second
Floor, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant
versus
1 - Manoj Nirmalkar S/o Derharam Nirmalkar Aged About 53 Years R/o
Village Ward No.- 18, Vardamaan Nagar Mahasamund, Tehsil and District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Derharam Nirmalkar Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Ward No.- 18,
Vardamaan Nagar Mahasamund, Tehsil and District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Dulari Nirmalkar W/o Derharam Nirmalkar Aged About 69 Years
R/o Village Ward No.- 18, Vardamaan Nagar Mahasamund, Tehsil and
District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sonuram Kosariya S/o Vedprakash Kosariya Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Bemcha, Police Station Tahsil and District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
5 - Uttar Kumar Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Ekta Chowk
Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil and District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For the appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr.
Abhishek Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Devesh Kela, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

2
Order on Board
04.11.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“MV Act”) has been filed by the Insurer challenging the quantum of the
impugned award dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. H-136 of 2022
whereby a total compensation of Rs.30,94,000/- has been awarded to the
claimants.
2. The claimants have also filed cross objections seeking further
enhancement of the award to the tune of Rs.10,06,000/- in addition to the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
3 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Komal Kant Nirmalkar died in a motor accident
took place on 18.06.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent
no.1 who drove the offending Car No. C.G. 04-HK/1140 and hit the
motorcycle of deceased. Appellant No.1 is father and appellants 2 & 3 are
grand parents of the deceased. They being legal heirs have filed claim
application u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking a total compensation of Rs. 41
lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
determined the income to be 15,000 based on the salary slip (Exhibit P- ₹
15/C) and the statement of Mukesh Kumar (A.W.3); however, the
attendance register (Exhibit P-20) shows that the amount paid varied each
month, and witness Mukesh Kumar has admitted that no register recording
the daily payment of 500 has been produced. Therefore, ₹ the income taken
by the Tribunal is on higher side. Since deceased was unmarried, one half
towards personal expenses should have been deducted instead of 1/3rd.

3
He prays that the award may suitably be modified.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits
that considering the evidence of Mukesh Kumar (A.W.3) and the document
(Ex.P-15C) the Tribunal has properly taken the monthly income of deceased
to Rs.15,000/- which needs no interference. Learned counsel for the
appellant contends that since it was a private-sector job rather than a
permanent position, 50 percent future prospects is appropriate and not
40%.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
7. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning of Rs.15,000/-
per month by doing the job of computer assistant and salesman and the
tribunal considering the evidence of Mukesh Kumar (A.W.3) and the salary
slip (Ex.P-15-C) took the income of Rs.15,000/- per month.
8. In this regard, The claimant witness Mukesh Kumar (A.W.3) has
stated in his evidence that he is owner of Manish Automobil where the
deceased Komalkant was working and they use to pay Rs.500/- per day. He
has also admitted the fact that each day, the workers’ attendance is
marked in the attendance register when they attend to work in the shop.
The salary certificate produced by him shows that he was receiving a
monthly wages of Rs.15,000/-. However, it is stated he did not maintain
separate accounts for the monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- paid to the
deceased. This witness has further deposed that he did not maintain
account statements regarding the salaries paid to the employees. His
evidence further go to show that though he had shown the details of the
employees salaries in his income tax returns but did not produce those tax
returns before the Tribunal.
9. The details of entries made in the attendance register (Ex.P-20)
shows that the payments made to the deceased for the work done by him

4
for the last three months- March, April and May 2022 were Rs. 13,000,
13000/- and Rs.13,500 respectively. Therefore, it appears that the monthly
payment amounts made to him are not uniform. Furthermore, Mukesh
Kumar (A.W.3) has not produced any assessment details regarding the
income derived in his automobile showroom. Considering the fact that the
monthly payment amounts are inconsistent and the workers are paid @
Rs.500/- per day for the number of days they work in a calendar month
and in absence of any tax-returns, it would be appropriate to reduce the
monthly income to Rs.13,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the award
of the tribunal is liable to be modified to that extent.
10. The Tribunal added 40% future prospects to the income, deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 18.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal ought to
have added 50% Future Prospects as the deceased was a salaried employee.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the
deceased was not a permanent employee as the nature of job shows that he
was temporarily engaged on daily wages, therefore, 40% future prospects
added by the Tribunal is found appropriate which needs no change.
12. The appellant/Insurer further submits that the deceased was
unmarried at the time of accident, therefore, one-half deduction towards
personal expenses should have been made instead the Tribunal has
granted 1/3rd which cannot be sustainable. However, since the deceased
was bachelor and the claimants are father and grand-parents, one-half
should have been deducted instead of 1/3rd.
13. The Tribunal has further awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- under
the other conventional heads like loss of consortium (Rs.40,000); loss of
estate (Rs.15,000) and funeral expenses (Rs.15000) which appear to be
meagre in view the principle of the 10% automatic enhancement for every
three years.

5
14. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established
that every individual claimant is entitled to a separate compensation for the
loss of consortium or love and affection. There are 3 claimants in this case.
Thus each claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- separately and the total
comes to Rs.1,32,000/-- under this specific head.
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of
the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is
computing the compensation as below :
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Total loss of
dependency
30,24,000/-

Rs. 13,000 X 12 =
1,56,000 plus
Future Prospectus-
40% i.e., 62,400 =
2,18,400 minus
one-half deduction of
personal expenses
i.e. 1,09,200 =
1,09,200 x 18
multiplier =
19,65,600/-
2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/-
4. Loss of consortium 40,000/-
(44,000 x 3)
1,32,000/-

30,94,000/- 21,30,600/-
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the respondents 1 to 3 are held
entitled for Rs. 21,30,600/- and not Rs.30,94,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

6
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed
in part and the cross-objections filed by the claimants stand disposed off.
The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
Sd/ -
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Rao
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.11.05
17:32:02
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO