SANTURAM @ SHANTURAM UIKE vs NARENDRA KUMAR KACHLAM

1

CGHC010445152025 2026:CGHC:44757
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2227 of 2025
1 - Santuram @ Shanturam Uike S/o Lt. Mainuram Aged About 47
Years R/o Village Chichgaon P.O. Kulhadkatta Tehsil-
Bhanupratappur District Kanker C.G.
2 - Surjotin Uike W/o Shanturam Uike Aged About 44 Years R/o
Village Chichgaon P.O. Kulhadkatta Tehsil- Bhanupratappur District
Kanker C.G.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Narendra Kumar Kachlam S/o Ramuram Kachlam Aged About 30
Years R/o Village-Chhindpal, P.S.- Badgaon, Teh- Pakhanjur, Dist-
Kanker C.G. (Driver Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 19
B.G. 9987)
2 - Birendra Dehari S/o Mahhettar Ram Dehari Aged About 51 Years
House No. 31 Ganetapara Ward No. 08 Amagaon (Aamaguhan)-
Damkassa P.S. And Outpost Bhanupratappur, District Kanker C.G.
(Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 19 B.G. 9987)
3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch
Manager Branch Office - M.M. Tower Akashwani Road Jagdalpur Teh
And District- Bastar C.G. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Cruiser Bearing
Registration No. C.G. 19 B.G. 9987)
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.16
14:32:49
+0530

2
(15.10.2026)
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
02.08.2025, passed in Claim Case No.13/2023, whereby the
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.12,19,400/- as compensation for the death of Late
Manohar Uike (26 years old), who died in a road accident
which took place on 17.03.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser
amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the minimum wages were Rs.
9,960/- per month on the date of the accident i.e.
17.03.2023; therefore, the income of the deceased should be
considered on the higher side. He also submits that the
Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount under other
conventional heads, which needs to be enhanced. Therefore,
the instant appeal should be allowed, and the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.
He also prayed that the principle of ‘pay and recover’ may be
applied.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned award. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 3/insurance company submits that since the
offending vehicle was driven by its driver in breach of policy
conditions, and there was no valid permit for the offending
vehicle on the date of the accident, the company is not liable
for payment of compensation.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. In the present case, the learned Tribunal assessed the
deceased's monthly income at ₹ 8,000. According to the

3
claimants, the deceased was approximately 26 years old,
worked as a laborer and mason, and earned 15,000 per
₹
month, though no documentary evidence was produced to
substantiate this claim. Accordingly, in view of the facts and
circumstances, it is appropriate to assess the deceased's
monthly income at 9,960, in accordance with the minimum ₹
wages notification issued by the office of the Labour
Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, for unskilled labour.
Additionally, while the Tribunal awarded only 77,000 under
₹
conventional heads, this amount ought to be enhanced to
1,32,000. To this extent, the impugned award needs to be
₹
modified.
6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the
judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of
1
National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi , Sarla
2
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @
3
Chuhru Ram & Ors , this Court is computing the
compensation as below:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1 Income Rs. 8,000 x 12 =
Rs. 9,960 x 12 =
96,000/-
1,19,520/-
2. Future
prospect
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
38,400) =
1,34,400/-
47,808) =
1,67,328/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. Rs.
67,200) = 67,200/-
(-) 1/2 (i.e. Rs.
83,664) = 83,664/-
4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 11,42,400/- (x) 17 =
14,22,288/-
5 Other
conventional
heads
Rs. 77,000 Rs. 1,32,000/-
[18,000+18,000+
(48,000x2)]
Total Rs. 12,19,400/- Rs. 15,54,288/-
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

4
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs.12,19,400/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,54,288/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.12,19,400/-, the appellants are
held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,34,888/- . The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
8. So far as the prayer for apply the principle of ‘pay and
recover’ is concerned, in accordance with the judgment
passed in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd , (2018) 7 SCC 558 , where there
is a breach of insurance conditions due to the absence of a
fitness certificate or permit, an order for "pay and recover" is
considered appropriate given that the offending vehicle was
insured. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned judgment,
it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the
awarded compensation amount to the claimants, which it
may subsequently recover from the registered owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in
writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the
award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said
communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the
help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination
of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the
claimants resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu