1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 71 of 2017 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Aged About 18 Years Through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurance Company Of Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.18/ H-1231, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shanti Wd/o Late Mangalram, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Patarpara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Puja D/o Late Mangalram, Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti, Respondent No.1, R/o Village Patarpara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Raju S/o Late Mangalram, Aged About 10 Months, Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti, Respondent No.1, R/o Village Patarpara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 4 - Sudru Ram S/o Late Tokdu, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Patarpara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Satish Vishwas S/o Motilal Vishwas, R/o Nagar Panchayat Sukma Kumharras, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.18/ H-1231, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ravindra Bala S/o Surjo Kant Bala, Aged About 49 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Sukma Patnampara, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Pickup No. C.G.18/ H-1231, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant– Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the award dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 75/2014. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,69,000/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants, holding the appellant–Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. 3 2. It is the case of the appellant that it was the insurer of Pickup Vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.-18/H-1231, which is alleged to be the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No. 5 is the driver of the said vehicle, while respondent No. 6 is its registered owner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased Magalram, who had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim application was filed alleging that on 21.01.2012, the deceased Magalram was travelling from Foolbagdi to Sukma in the offending pickup vehicle as a helper to the driver. It was alleged that due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 5, the vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was initially treated and thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 27.01.2012 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. It was further alleged that an offence was registered against the driver at Police Station Sukma and, upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. In the claim petition, it was pleaded that the deceased was about 25 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning approximately Rs. 4,500/- per month by working as a helper. On the said basis, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,50,000/- under various heads. Notices were issued to all non-applicants, including the present appellant. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the appellant–Insurance Company filed its written statement and specifically denied the allegations made in 4 the claim application. The appellant took a categorical defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, that the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit and fitness certificate, and that the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and that his risk was not covered under the policy issued by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant asserted that it was not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Both sides were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. 4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal decided the issues against the appellant and in favour of the claimants and passed the impugned award fastening the liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. Being dissatisfied with the findings recorded and the liability imposed, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded findings based on conjectures and 5 surmises. It is vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation without there being any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was working as a helper on the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the claimants have failed to prove the employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle, and in absence of such proof, the deceased cannot be treated as a helper so as to bring him within the scope of coverage of the insurance policy. Learned counsel further submits that from the evidence on record, it is clearly established that the deceased was travelling in the offending pickup vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. It is contended that a goods vehicle cannot be used for carrying passengers and the insurance policy issued by the appellant does not cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, fastening liability upon the appellant is wholly illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the offending vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as it was carrying unauthorized passengers. Such use of the vehicle constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy conditions, and in such circumstances, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owner or to satisfy the award. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly consider the defence raised by the Insurance Company 6 regarding violation of policy conditions, including the absence of valid and effective driving licence and the misuse of the vehicle. It is contended that once such violations are established on record, the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from liability. It is also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and on the higher side, particularly in view of the fact that the income of the deceased was not proved by any documentary evidence. The rate of interest awarded is also stated to be excessive and arbitrary. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the impugned award is perverse, suffers from non-application of mind, and is liable to be set aside. It is prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned award dated 24.09.2016 be quashed, and the appellant–Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants No. 1 to 4 submits that the cross-objection has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, as the impugned award dated 24.09.2016 does not grant just and reasonable compensation to the claimants as mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Claims Tribunal has not rightly assessed the age of the deceased. On the basis of medical documents, a finding has been recorded that the deceased was about 25 years of age at the time of the accident. It is contended 7 that the assessment of age based on medical and post-mortem records is scientific and reliable and deserves acceptance. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita & Ors. vs. Vinod Singh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 586, wherein it has been held that in the absence of material to the contrary, the age mentioned in post-mortem or medical documents should be accepted for the purpose of determining the appropriate multiplier. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a very low figure. Though the claimants specifically pleaded and deposed that the deceased was working as a Helper/Conductor and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- or Rs. 3,500/- per month, which is wholly inadequate and on the lower side. Learned counsel submits that even if documentary proof of income was not available, the income ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. As per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the monthly income of an unskilled worker during the relevant period was approximately Rs. 4,200/- per month, and therefore the income assessed by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a serious error in not awarding any amount towards medical expenses incurred during the treatment of the deceased. It is an admitted 8 position that the deceased survived for several days after the accident and remained under medical treatment till his death on 27.01.2012. In such circumstances, reasonable compensation towards medical expenses ought to have been awarded even on an reasonable estimation basis, which has not been done, thereby causing grave injustice to the claimants. It is also argued that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is grossly inadequate. The Tribunal has awarded only a total sum of Rs. 65,000/- towards spousal consortium, funeral expenses, and love and affection, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant future prospects while assessing the loss of dependency. Even in the case of self-employed or fixed-wage earners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an addition towards future prospects is mandatory. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondents/claimants No. 1 to 4 prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the cross- appeal, suitably enhance the compensation awarded under various heads. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal. 8. Upon such examination, the contention regarding the deceased 9 being a gratuitous passenger is concerned, the learned Tribunal has, on appreciation of oral evidence led by the claimants, recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of a helper. The said finding is based on evidence available on record and has not been shown to be perverse or unsupported by material evidence. It is settled law that findings of fact recorded by the Claims Tribunal, when based on appreciation of evidence, do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction unless shown to be wholly arbitrary or perverse, which is not the case herein. The plea raised by the appellant regarding violation of policy conditions, including absence of valid and effective driving licence and misuse of the vehicle, has also been duly considered by the learned Tribunal. However, the appellant has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate these allegations. Mere pleading of breach of policy conditions is not sufficient; the burden squarely lies upon the Insurance Company to establish such breach by leading affirmative evidence. In the absence of proof of a fundamental breach of policy conditions, the appellant cannot seek exoneration from liability. 9. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to demonstrate how the alleged breaches, even if assumed, had a causal connection with the accident in question. In the absence of such nexus, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be avoided. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held the 10 appellant liable to satisfy the award. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned award dated 24.09.2016 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal warranting interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant–Insurance Company is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 11. So far as the cross-appeal preferred by claimants / respondents No. 1 – 4 is concerned, this Court finds substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants regarding improper assessment of income and age of the deceased by the learned Tribunal. 12. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- or Rs. 3,500/- per month, which is evidently on the lower side. The accident occurred on 21.01.2012. Even assuming that no documentary evidence of income was produced, the Tribunal was required to assess the income on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. As per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the minimum wages for an unskilled worker during the relevant period were Rs. 4,277/- per month. The learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the statutory minimum wages applicable at the time of the accident, thereby resulting in under-assessment of the 11 income of the deceased. This Court, therefore, holds that the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 4,277/- per month. 13. Further, with regard to the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the medical evidence on record. The Post-Mortem Report, which is a reliable and scientific document, clearly indicates that the age of the deceased at the time of death was about 25 years. In absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the age mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report deserves acceptance. The learned Tribunal, however, has not applied the appropriate multiplier corresponding to the age of 25 years. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC and reiterated in subsequent judgments, the appropriate multiplier for a deceased aged 25 years is 18. The Tribunal has erroneously applied a multiplier of 16, which is incorrect. 14. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects, which is now a mandatory component of compensation calculation in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The deceased was 25 years of age, and therefore the claimants are entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects. 15. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for 12 funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for loss of consortium. 16. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re-determines the compensation amounts as follows: Income 4,277 p.m. Annual Income 4,277 x 12 40% future Prospective (20,530/-) Personal Expenses(1/4) (17,963/-) Net Income Multiplier (x18) Loss of Income Rs. 51,324/- +20,530/- Rs. 71,854/- (-17,963) Rs. 53,891/- Rs. 9,70,038/- Loss of Consortirum @ Rs. 40,000/- per person (with an increase of 10% per 3 years) Rs.48,000/-x4 Rs. 1,92,000/- Funeral Expenses (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Estate (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 11,98,038/- 17. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 11,98,038/-. After deducting Rs. 5,69,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,29,038/-. 18. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,29,038/- in addition to what is already awarded by the 13 claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Thus, the cross-appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 / claimants is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to the extent indicated above. 19. The rest of the findings of the learned Tribunal on quantum remain undisturbed. It is clarified that the enhanced amount shall form part of the total compensation payable. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna