1 2025:CGHC:18925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 652 of 2018 1 - The Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, The Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Office Shop No.3, Second Floor, Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle No. CG- 17-T-1028). ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Ranai Wd/o Raghunath Baghel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Gumdel, Vikas Khand and Tahsil Bakavand, Thana Nagarnar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Khemeshwari D/o Late Raghunath Baghel Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Gumdel, Vikas Khand And Tahsil Bakavand, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar (Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Maheshwari D/o Late Raghunath Baghel Aged About 15 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Ranai Wd/o Raghunath Baghel, R/o Village Gumdel, Vikas Khand and Tahsil Bakavand, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Keshamani D/o Late Raghunath Baghel Aged About 13 Years Minor Representing through mother Smt. Ranai Wd/o Raghunath Baghel, R/o Village Gumdel, Vikas Khand and Tahsil Bakavand, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh (Claimants). 5 - Suldhar Nag S/o Sukman Nag Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhond, Tahsil Bastar, Thana Kotvali Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle No. CG-17-T-1028). A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 6 - Sukman S/o Mahadev Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhond, Tehsil Bastar, Thana Kotvali Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle No. CG-17-T-1028). ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent 1 to 4 : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For respondent 5 & 6 : Mr. Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 25 /04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 02.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 45/2017 on the ground that the award passed by the tribunal is on higher side and liability. 2. In this case, the claimants have also filed cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of the award. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 02.08.2012 at about 4.45 when the deceased Yuvraj alias Guddu Baghel with his friend Shankar were going towards Bhanpuri from Jagdalpur on motorcycle bearing Regn. No. CG- 17-J / 2233, then respondent no.5 coming from Jagdalpur by driving the 3 offending vehicle Tata Magic No.C.G.17-T/1028 rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle near village Bastar, due to which, deceased had sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in hospital and during course of treatment on 05.08.2012 he died. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.38,20,000/- on various heads. 4. The learned claims Tribunal on appraisal of the evidence brought on record, took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.4500/- i.e., 54,000/- per annum, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and further added 40% future prospects and thus worked out the total dependency to Rs.9,63,900/-. In addition, Rs. 30,000/- has been granted on other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 9,93,900/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Insurance Company submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle did not have valid permit, therefore, there was breach of terms of insurance policy. He further submits that the deceased was unmarried and the Tribunal while computing the income of deceased, ought to have deducted one-half towards personal and living expenses, however, by deducting one-fourth from the income of deceased, the total loss of income or dependency has been calculated on higher side, thereby excessive compensation has been granted. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of 4 respondents/ claimants 1 to 4 submits that the Tribunal has inadequately taken the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- and further no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection, therefore, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and prays that the amount awarded may suitably be enhanced. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. As regards the contention of appellant/Insurer that there was breach of policy terms as the offending vehicle did not have valid permit at the time of incident, the burden is on the Insurance Company to prove the same. However, no evidence is produced by the insurance Company to prove the breach of policy. So the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record has rightly concluded that it is not proved that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 in breach of policy terms, which cannot be said to be unsustained. 9. 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. 10. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.7500/- per month by working as Head-mason/labour, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced. However, it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased to Rs.4500/-. Thus, the annual income 5 has been rightly worked out to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4500 x 12). So far as future prospects is concerned, as per the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering that the deceased was 22 years of age, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., Rs.21,600 the annual income would come to Rs.75,600/-. 11. The deceased was unmarried and the claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased so the deduction towards personal expenses would be one-half and not one-fourth as deducted by the Tribunal. So after deducting one-half, the annual dependency income would come to Rs.37,800/-. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the fact that the deceased was within the age group of 21 – 25 years, the Tribunal ought have applied multiplier 18 and not 17. Thus after applying the multiplier 18, the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.6,80,400/-. Under the other heads, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.15000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15000/- for funeral expenses which the Tribunal has sufficiently granted. However, no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection. As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, AIR Online 2018 SC, each claimant is entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- on this head. In this case, there are 4 claimants, therefore, the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,70,400/-. In view of the above discussion, this Court is recomputing the compensation as follows : 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 6,80,400/- 6 2. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of Love and affection (Rs.40000 x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.8,70,400/- 12. Thus the total compensation is recalculated as Rs.8,70,400/-. Hence, the reduction of the compensation would be Rs.1,23,500/-. The Claimants would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.8,70,400/- instead of Rs.9,93,900/- as granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 8,70,400/-. The excess amount of compensation, if any, paid by the Insurance Company/appellant shall be refunded to him. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the claimants Under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC is dismissed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The records of the tribunal be sent back along with the copy of this order for necessary compliance. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao