1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 116 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office, S A D A Complex Transport Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Janki Wd/o Late Deenbandhu @ Gullu, Aged About 22 Years Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Singhpur Chanwaridand Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ashwani S/o Late Deenbandhu @ Gullu, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Janki Wd/o Late Deenbandhu @ Gullu, Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Singhpur Chanwaridand Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3. Ganesh S/o Late Deenbandhu @ Gullu, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Janki Wd/o Late Deenbandhu @ Gullu, Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Singhpur Chanwaridand Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 4. Indrawati Wd/o Late Biran, Aged About 60 Years Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Singhpur Chanwaridand Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5. Deenanath S/o Late Biran, Aged About 18 Years Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Singhpur Chanwaridand Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..................Claimants No. 1 To 5, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 6. Uday Bahadur S/o Manbahadur, Aged About 48 Years R/o Bazarpara, Korea Colliery, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ................Driver, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 7. Proprietor New Babra Transport, Namnakala, Ring Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh .................Owner, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 18.10.2016 passed by the leraned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded and directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,07,000/- to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein with interest @ 9% has been awarded. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 5 have also filed a cross- objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 11.11.2012, the deceased Deenbandhu @ Gullu was travelling with his friend on a Bajaj Discover motorcycle from Village Chandwaridand to Ambikapur, 3 and upon reaching near the BSNL office situated at Haldibadi Sadak Dafai, their motorcycle was hit by the offending bus bearing registration No. C.G.-15-ZC-0750, resulting in the instantaneous death of Deenbandhu @ Gullu. In connection with the said accident, Crime No. 504/12 was registered at Police Station Chirmiri for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending bus (present respondent No. 6), and after due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. The deceased, aged about 25 years at the time of the accident, was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from his occupation as a mason and also from a poultry business. Consequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by his widow, two minor children, and his parents, seeking compensation of Rs. 59,40,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle. After due service of notice, the appellant as well as respondent No. 7 filed their respective written statements, whereas respondent No. 6, the driver, remained absent, leading the Learned Tribunal to proceed ex parte against him. In the written statement submitted by the appellant-insurer, it was specifically pleaded that at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven without a valid and effective driving licence, and it was further contended that the motorcycle rider was equally responsible for the occurrence. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues, and after recording the evidence of the parties, passed the 4 impugned award, thereby granting compensation of Rs. 5,07,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and fastening the liability upon the present appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the impugned award is wholly unsustainable as it is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, and that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding excessive compensation under the conventional heads in disregard of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the tribunal has erred in returning a negative finding on issue No. 3 with respect to the breach of policy conditions, despite clear oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant demonstrating that the driving licence (Ex. N.A.5) had not been renewed on the date of the accident and, therefore, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also fallen into grave error in fastening liability upon the appellant contrary to binding precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court which squarely govern the issue in favour of the insurance company He further pointed out that although the appeal is filed with a delay of one day, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit has been filed, and since the appellant is challenging only the liability aspect, a separate application seeking exemption from 5 filing the certified copy of the order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has also been preferred. Hence, this appeal. 5. None for the respondents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering that the insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the limited ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was allegedly not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, it is significant to note that the learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 20 of the impugned award, has meticulously examined Licence NA-5 and NA-5C, the latter being the original licence, and has categorically recorded a finding that the licence was issued on 12.06.1984 and remained valid until 17.01.2016; thus, on the date of the accident, i.e., 11.11.2012, the licence was unquestionably in force. Consequently, the contention of the Insurance Company that the licence was valid only up to 20.08.2012 is wholly unsupported by the original record, and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, no ground is made out to warrant interference with the well-reasoned finding of the learned Tribunal, particularly in light of the original driving licence exhibited as Ex. NA-5C. 6 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Cross-objection/Appeal 9. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 12,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 24,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are the wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,32,000/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium to wife, Rs. 30,000/- towards consortium to children, 15,000/- towards consortium to mother, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,07,000/- in favour of the wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 10. None for respondents. 11. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for appellant that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 7 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 14. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 15. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 4646/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 55,752/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards 8 future prospects i.e. Rs. 22,301/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 78,053/-. 16. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are the wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 19,513/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 58,540/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,53,720/-. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 i.e. wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,81,720/- in the following manner:- 9 S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 10,53,720/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10% +10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 12,81,720/- 17. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,81,720/-. After deducting Rs. 5,07,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,74,720/-. 18. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 i.e. wife, children, mother and brother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,74,720/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when The date when The date when the judgment is 10 the judgment is reserved the judgment is pronounced uploaded on the website Operative Full 12.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat