1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 675 of 2018 1 - Smt. Bheneshwari Sahu Wd/o Late Jeevanlal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No.28, Bti Road, Pwd Qtr. No. H/31, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Shyamkunj, Qtr. No. 54, New Shanti Bihar Colony, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Subhash Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jeevanlal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.28, Bti Road, Pwd Qtr. No. H/31, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Shyamkunj, Qtr. No. 54, New Shanti Bihar Colony, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Suresh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Mannu Lal Dewangan R/o Ward No.13, Mahapaya Para Aarang, P.S. Aarang, District Raipur, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of Bolero No. Cg17 D1747), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, In Front Of Kachery, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Bolero No. Cg17 D1747), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. MAC No. 526 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Co. Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional - Office No. 1, 1st Floor Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............(Insurer Of Bolero No. C. G.-17d-1247). ............Non- Applicant No. 2., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Bheneshwari Sahu W/o Wd/o Late Jivanlal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 28, B.T.I Road, P. W. D. Quarter No. -H/31, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Permanent 3 Address- Shyam Kunj, House No. 54, New Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Applicant No. 1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Subhash Kumar Sahu S/o S/o Jiwanlal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 28, B.T.I Road, P. W. D. Quarter No. -H/31, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Permanent Address- Shyam Kunj, House No. 54, New Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Applicant No. 2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Suresh Kumar Dewangan S/o S/o Shri Mannulal Dewangan R/o Ward No.-13, Mahamaya Para Aarang, P. S. Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............(Owner Cum Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G.- 17 D- 1247). ............Non- Applicant No. 1)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh -- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. 4 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 10.1.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 526 of 2018 is insurer's appeal and MAC No. 675 of 2018 is claimants' appeal against the award dated 10.1.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 372/2016. MAC No. 526/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 30.04.2015 at about 11:30 pm., Jiwanlal Sahu along with others was returning to Mahasamund from Raipur after attending a marriage ceremony in a Bolero bearing registration No. CG-170-1247 (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle"). On the way respondent No 3, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, collided with a truck tanker standing on the roadside, as a result of which the passengers of the Bolero, namely Keshav Sahu. Devnarayan Jangade, Bharat Lal Sahu, Jageshwar Sinha, Radheshyam Sahu, Ritesh Sahu, and Jiwanlal Sahu sustained serious injuries and were taken to the hospital. For better treatment Jiwanlal Sahu was admitted to Yashwant Rao Hospital on 01.05.2015, where he succumbed to his injuries on 07.05.2015. For the death of Jiwanlal Sahu, his wife and major son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 5 Motor Vehicles Act 1968 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 1,46,60,000/-. Respondent No. 3 (owner-cum-driver) in his written statement, denied the averments of the claim petition and contended that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company, therefore in case of liability the appellant would be responsible for payment of compensation. The appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the claim and submitted that since respondent No. 2. being the major son of the deceased was earning independently, he was not dependent upon the deceased. It was further contended that the report initially mentioned a collision between a tractor and the Bolero, whereas the final report recorded that the accident had occurred between the Bolero and a truck tanker, making the alleged accident suspicious and liable to dismissal. The appellant also contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligent parking of the truck tanker (bearing registration No. HR- 55/B-1775) on a public road without indicators, and therefore, the claim, if any, was maintainable against the owner, driver, and insurer of the said truck tanker. It was further alleged that respondent No. 3 was driving the Bolero under the influence of alcohol, and that the vehicle, insured as a Private Car Package Policy, was being used as a taxi at the time of the accident, in 6 contravention of the insurance policy conditions, and therefore. the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify On the basis of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed issues. and after due inquiry, awarded a total sum of Rs 20,91,773/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization, in favour of respondent Nos 1 and 2, and held respondent No. 3 and the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally liable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law and deserves interference. He further submits that the alleged accident took place at about 11:30 pm on 30.04.2015 near a toll gate, wherein the vehicle (Bolero) driven by respondent No. 3 dashed against a stationary tanker, however, the police neither seized the said tanker nor mentioned the circumstances under which it was parked on the roadside In such a situation, the owner, driver and insurer of the tanker were also necessary parties to the claim petition, but they were not impleaded. He further submits that though several persons sustained injuries and were hospitalized, the post-mortem of the deceased was intentionally avoided, creating doubt regarding the actual cause of death. In the absence of post-mortem, it is not clearly established that deceased Jiwanlal Sahu died due to the 7 injuries sustained in the alleged accident, and hence the liability of the appellant Insurance Company could not have been fastened. He further submits that respondent No. 2, being the major son of the deceased, was independently earning and was not dependent upon the deceased and therefore not entitled to compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect and wrongly awarded compensation on the higher side. Moreover, while computing loss of dependency, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. He further submits. that the Tribunal has also awarded interest at a higher rate. contrary to the prevailing rates in nationalized banks, which requires suitable reduction. Accordingly, it is urged that the award of compensation is highly excessive and liable to be reduced to the extent permissible under law, as the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is lastly submitted that in compliance with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant Insurance Company has already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the same. 8 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no substance in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. The contention that the stationary tanker was neither seized by the police nor its presence on the roadside explained, cannot absolve the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero which was duly insured with the appellant The non- impleadment of the tanker owner, driver and insurer does not defeat the rights of the claimants The absence of post-mortem is also of no avail, as the FIR, medical documents and witness statements clearly establish that deceased Jiwanlal Sahu died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The objection regarding respondent No. 2 being a major son and not dependent is without merit, as dependency has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal Likewise, the plea of 50% deduction towards personal expenses instead of one-third is contrary to the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC and subsequent rulings. The award of interest is also in line with prevailing practice and cannot be termed excessive Thus, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, proper and based on settled principles, warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable o 9 be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 675/2018 9. Brief facts of the case, is that respondent No:2 is the Insurance Company and respondent No.1 is the owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle The appellant/claimant, being the legal heir of deceased Jeevanlal Sahu, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.46.60,000/- on account of his death On 30:04 2015 Jeevanlal Sahu, aged about 50 years and working as Grade III in the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Manasamund with a monthly income of Rs. 27,878/-, was traveling in a Bolero bearing registration No. CG17D1247 from Raipur to Mahasamund to attend a marriage ceremony. At about 11:30 pm when the vehicle reached Aarang Rasni Toll Naka, the driver drove it rashly and negligently and dashed against a tanker stationed on the road, resulting in grievous injuries to the passengers. Jeevanial Sahu was admitted to Yashwant Hospital, Raipur on 01.05.2015, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 07.05.2015. An FIR under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Aarang, District Raipur. On these grounds, the claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents, sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,46,60,000/- under various 10 heads. Respondent No. 1 in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent. No 2. was being driven under a valid insurance policy, and that he possessed a valid and effective driving license, therefore he should be exonerated from liability. Respondent No.2 also filed its reply denying the claim, contending that contradictions existed in the FIR and challan, and further asserting that the Bolero was registered for personal use but was being used for carrying a marriage party, amounting to a breach of policy conditions. After recording the evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award dated 10.01.2018 granting a total compensation of Rs. 20,91,773/-. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 27,878/- per month i.e. Rs. 3,34,536/- per annum. On the said basis, the annual income is reflected as Rs. 3,34,536/-. According to the financial year 2014-15 and the assessment year 2015-16, income up to Rs. 2,52,000/- was exempted from income tax. Income between Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- was subject to 10% income tax. On this basis, approximately Rs. 8,450/- was payable as income tax, which is deductible while determining the actual income. Thus, the annual income of the 11 deceased is calculated as Rs. 3,26,086/-. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 1,08,695/- for personal expenses the amount would be Rs. 2,17,391/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 50 to 60 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and son of the deceased the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 19,56,519/-. Further Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 65,254/- towards medical treatment and Rs 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,91,773/- in favour of the wife and son of the deceased with interest 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 20,91,773/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the 12 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. None for respondent No. 1 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 27,878/- per month i.e. Rs. 3,34,536/- per annum. On the said basis, the annual income is reflected as Rs. 3,34,536/-. According to the financial year 2014-15 and the assessment year 2015-16, income up to Rs. 2,52,000/- was exempted from income tax. Income between Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- was subject to 10% income tax. On this basis, approximately Rs. 8,450/- was payable as income tax, which is deductible while 13 determining the actual income. Thus, the annual income of the deceased is calculated as Rs 3,26,086/-. Hence accepting the income of the deceased, the annual income comes to Rs 3,26,086/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 15% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 48,913/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 3,74,999/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 to 60 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and son of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs.1,25,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs 2,49,999/-. 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 9, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs 22,49,991/-. 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 funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 65,254/- towards medical treatment As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR 14 Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and son of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 24,47,245/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 22,49,991/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). Rs. 96,000/- 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/- 05 Towards Medical Treatment Rs. 65,254/- Total Rs. 24,47,245/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 24,47,245/-. After deducting Rs 20,91,773/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,55,472/-. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and son of the deceased shall be 15 entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,55,472/- 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 Raghu Jat