1 2025:CGHC:36662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1517 of 2017 1 - Gameshwar Lal Sahu S/o Heeralal Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Mahavir Chowk, Semara, P. S. Sihawa,nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Driver, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Heeralal Sahu, S/o Asharam Sahu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Mahavir Chowk, Semara, P. S. Sihawa Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Owner, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Narbati Dhruve Wd/o Late Chandan Dhruve, Aged About 52 Years R/o At Village Semara Dihipara Tahsil Nagari, P. S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tikarapara, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahendra Kumar Dhruve, S/o Late Chandan Dhruve, Aged About 34 Years R/o At Village Semara Dihipara Tahsil Nagari, P. S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tikarapara, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chunendra Kumar Dhruve, S/o Late Chandan Dhruve, Aged About 32 Years R/o At Village Semara Dihipara Tahsil Nagari, P. S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tikarapara, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Ratiram, S/o Chainuram, Aged About 74 Years Non Applicant No. 3, R/o At Village Semara Dihipara Tahsil Nagari, P. S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ram Bai, W/o Ratiram, Aged About 72 Years Non Applicant No. 4, R/o At Village Semara Dihipara Tahsil Nagari, P. S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Khemlata, W/o Rama Netam, Aged About 28 Years R/o Beejapur, Tahsil And District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 5, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office R. K. Plaza Pachpedi Naka, Ringh Road No. 1, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Insurance, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 7 : Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. The present is driver and owner appeal assailing the award dated 03.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 47/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,38,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimants herein. 3 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 6 represented by Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant is the driver and owner of the tractor and trolley involved in the incident. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are the claimants, while respondent No. 7 is the insurer of the said vehicle. According to the claim petition, the deceased, Late Chandan Druve, died in a road accident on 26.05.2015 while transporting crops from the field using the offending vehicle. At that time, the appellant, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused the deceased to fall from the tractor, resulting in fatal injuries. The matter was reported to the concerned police station, and a criminal case was registered against the appellant, with a charge sheet filed in the appropriate court. Upon service of notice in the claim case, both the appellants and the insurance company appeared before the Claims Tribunal and contested the claim. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings and evidence on record, framed five issues for adjudication. The claimants, the insurance company, and the vehicle owner presented their respective witnesses. After evaluating the evidence and material on record, the Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 03.04.2017, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,38,600 to the claimants. 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has preferred this appeal while challenging the liability fastened upon the insurance company. By holding that the owner has committed breach of insurance policy the deceased was sitting in the trolley of the tractor and which is being insured for agriculture purpose, however, the premium for the person to be seated in the trolley was not paid as such the liability was fastened upon the owner while exonerating the insurance company. It was argued that so far as deceased sitting in the trolley is concerned according to Rule 97 (7) (1) of the Rules, 1994, the deceased was included for the purpose of the person and as such the owner cannot be held liable for grant of compensation in respect of death of the deceased. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the insurance company opposes the same and stating that it would not be applicable in the case of the appellant as no specific pleading and evidence has been produced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the claim petition, it is evident that the deceased was carrying his agriculture produce along with the pipes and as such the liability is required to be fastened upon the insurance company. 5 8. Taking account of Rule 97 (7) (1) of the Rules, 1994 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in which the deceased was carrying his agriculture product along with pipes used for agricultural purpose, there is no breach of insurance policy, the tribunal has wrongly considered the owner to be liable for grant of compensation while exonerating the insurance company. 9. In view of this Court, the liability should have fastened upon the insurance company. Accordingly, while shifting the liability from owner to the insurance company, the insurance company is directed to pay compensation in respect of death of the deceased. 10. In such a situation, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable for paying compensation in respect of the deceased is not found to be sustainable, and the same is liable to be set aside in this regard. 11. In the result, the appeal of the driver and owner/appellant is allowed and the insurance company is found liable for compensation. The order impugned is modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Cross Appeal 12. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After adding 15% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 5,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 41,400/-. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 13,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 27,600/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 51 to 55 years and the claimants No. 1 to 6 herein are the wife, children, parents and sister of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 3,03,600/-. Further Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,38,600/- 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. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants No. 1 to 6 herein submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,38,600/- 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. 14. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 7 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. 15. 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. 16. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- 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. 5,787/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 69,444/- 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. 10,417/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 79,861/-. 8 17. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 51 to 55 years and the claimants No. 1 to 6 herein are the wife, children, parents and sister of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 26,620/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 53,241/-. 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 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,85,651/-. 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). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/- X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants No. 1 to 6 herein are the wife, children, parents and sister of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,65,651/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 9 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,85,651/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 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. 7,65,651/- 18. The cross-objection/appeal filed by the claimants No. 1 to 6 herein stands allowed. The total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,65,651/-. After deducting Rs. 3,38,600/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,27,051/-. 19. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein shall be entitled to Rs. 4,27,051/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall 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