1 2025:CGHC:13259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1040 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name Assurance) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sunliya Bhawan, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh............Non- Applicant No. 3 ... Appellant versus 1 - Pramod Sapre S/o Late Jethuram Sapre, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Service 2 - Pradeep Kumar S/o Late Jethuram Sapre, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Labour. 3 - Pratap Kumar Sapre S/o Late Jethuram Sapre, Aged About 31 Years Occupation Labour. All R/o Chhatamuda Naka, Raigarh, Police Station, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh........(Claimants) 4 - Pappu Kumar Shandilya S/o Late Ramadhin Shandilya, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Saraibhadar Chowki Jute Mill, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............(Non-Applicant No. 1) 5 - Umesh Sharma S/o Babulal Sharma, Occupation Owner Vehicle, R/o Bajrang Para, Raigarh, Police Station, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.............(Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 20/03/2025 The appellant/insurance company in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”) has called in question the legality and validity of the award dated 23.2.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.27/2017 whereby the Tribunal in a death case has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,97,440/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 8% pa from filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening the liability on the insurance company jointly and severally along with owner and driver of the vehicle. 02. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 with the averments that on 20.8.2015 at around 5 pm non- applicant No.1 Pappu Kumar Shandilya by driving the vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG 04 ZA 4226 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner dashed Kusum Bai Sapre as a result of which she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot itself. The deceased was 55 years old and was surviving on pension i.e. Rs.9,270/-. Thus, the claimants, who are sons of the 3 deceased, claimed a total compensation of Rs.28,74,800/- under various heads. 03. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 did not file any written statement and they remained exparte whereas non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement contended that the compensation has been claimed on much higher side. This apart, the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit and fitness certificate and that the driver was also not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, on account of there being breach of insurance policy conditions, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 04. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties framed issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by the non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.6,97,440/- by calculating the pension as income and instead notional income ought to have been taken. Further, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the claimants who are major and earning on their own as dependents on the deceased and at the most they can be awarded compensation under the conventional heads only. Lastly he submits that the interest awarded @ 8% pm is also on the higher side 4 and it needs to be reduced to 6%. 06. No one appears for the respondents despite service of notice. 07. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 08. With regard to income of the deceased, the claimants filed certified copy of pension payment order obtained under Right to Information Act which was marked as Ex.A-06. As per this document, the deceased being nominee of her husband Jethuram who was working in Railway Post Office as a Head Clerk and died on 06th January, 2014, was getting pension of Rs.9,270/- per month. The said evidence remained unrebutted. Hence the Tribunal assessed her yearly income as Rs.1,11,240/- (Rs.9,270 x 12) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, assessed the annual loss of dependency at Rs.74,160/-. Though the claimants are also earning but Pradeep Kumar Sapre (AW-1) has stated that the deceased would spend the said pension on their maintenance. In cross-examination he also denied the suggestion that pension was being used only for meeting her expenses and volunteered that it was being used for meeting the household expenses. He states that his elder brother and he would live together with the deceased. AW-2 Kanhaiya Lal Sahu in cross-examination also states that two brothers live in the family house. Thus, in view of the 5 above oral and documentary evidence, it can safely be presumed that the deceased was not spending the entire pension on herself but was also spending on her sons/claimants and as such, on account of her unfortunate death, the claimants are entitled to get the amount towards loss of dependency. As regards the rate of interest, considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2015, interest @8% pm awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation amount cannot be said to be on higher side at all. 09. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no substance in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.03.21 10:34:15 +0530