1 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 2025:CGHC:25992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1701 of 2017 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Bramh Road, Near Kumkum Hotel Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh .............Non-Applicant No.3, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meeta Wd/o Late Devsaran, Aged About 38 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..............Applicant No.1, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Mahima Kuldeep D/o Late Devsaran, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Meeta Res. No.1 Caste Panika, R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..............Applicant No.2, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ram Kuldeep S/o Late Devsaran, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Meeta Res. No.1 Caste Panika, R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..............Applicant No.3, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 4 - Laxman Kuldeep S/o Late Devsaran, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Meeta Res. No.1 Caste Panika, R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..............Applicant No.4, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Anand Kumar Singh S/o Late Manohar Singh, Aged About 30 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Dubchhola, P.S. And Tah. Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.1, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 474 of 2018 1 - Smt. Meeta Wd/o Late Devsharan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Mahima Kuldeep D/o Late Devsharan Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Meeta, R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ram Kuldeep S/o Late Devsharan Aged About 10 Years R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Laxman Kuldeep S/o Late Devsharan Aged About 10 Years R/o Village Ekta Nagar, Godripara, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Anand Kumar Singh S/o Late Manohar Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dubchoola, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-D-3190), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Ambikapur, Near Hotel Kumkum, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-D-3190), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) In MAC No.1701 of 2017 For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Shri Pushkar Sinha and Shri Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate on behalf of Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate In MAC No.474 of 2018 For Appellants : Shri Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (19/06/2025) 1. Learned counsel for the insurance company as well as learned counsel for the claimants have filed two claim petitions arising out of the same award dated 17.08.2017, therefore, they are heard together, clubbed together and being decided by this common order. 4 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 2. The Insurance Company has assailed the award whereby liability has been fastened upon it, contending that the offending vehicle was being operated in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is submitted that, at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was carrying three persons, which is in violation of the permissible usage under the insurance policy. As a result of the said accident, two individuals, namely, Manohar Singh and Devsharan, succumbed to their injuries. 3. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that on 20.09.2014, the deceased Devsharan was traveling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-16-D-3190 (hereinafter referred to as "the motorcycle") from Village Banji to Village Dubchhola. The said motorcycle was owned and driven by Respondent No. 5. When the vehicle reached near Village Chotekalua, Patel Para, Respondent No. 5, while driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident, resulting in Devsharan sustaining grievous injuries and dying on the spot. Consequently, the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of 93,40,000/- against ₹ Respondent No. 5 (owner/driver) and the appellant Insurance Company. In his written statement, Respondent No. 5 denied the averments of the claim petition and asserted that the deceased 5 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 was standing near a speed breaker at Patel Para when the motorcycle, being ridden by him along with his father during light drizzling, jumped at the breaker, causing Manohar (another pillion rider) to fall from the vehicle and collide with the deceased. It was further submitted that the motorcycle was insured with the appellant. Respondent No. 5, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against him. The appellant–United India Insurance Company Ltd.–also filed a written statement denying the claim, contending that the motorcycle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as it was carrying two pillion riders, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that the insurance policy was a "Liability Only" policy, which did not cover the risk of a pillion rider. Accordingly, the appellant also prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. After due inquiry and consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of 37,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of ₹ 7% per annum, and further directed that in case of default in payment within one month, the awarded amount shall carry interest at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the Insurance Company, despite having recorded a finding that 6 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the vehicle. It is contended that this crucial aspect ought to have been given due consideration while passing the award dated 03.08.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company is palpably illegal and warrants interference by this Court. Referring to the evidence of AW-1 and AW-2, it is argued that it is clearly established that three persons were riding on the motorcycle at the time of the accident, which constitutes a clear and deliberate violation of the terms of the insurance policy, as contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. It is further pointed out that in respect of the same accident, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order confirming that liability was rightly fastened upon the owner and not the Insurance Company. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and also on the judgment rendered in MAC No. 1301 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the owner candidly submits that he does not dispute the fact that, arising out of the same accident, the legal heirs of deceased Manohar had filed a claim petition before the 7 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 Claims Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal had fastened liability upon the owner on the ground that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that in the appeal arising therefrom, registered as MAC No. 1301 of 2016, this Hon’ble Court has upheld the finding of the Claims Tribunal and confirmed the liability fastened upon the owner, holding that the owner had committed a breach of the insurance policy. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants submits that they have also preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount under the head of future prospects. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was employed with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), and as per the settled position of law, considering the age of the deceased to be 46 years, an addition of 30% towards future prospects ought to have been granted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the award be modified to the extent of granting 30% future prospects in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the owner opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the claimants, submitting that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed and awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 37,00,000/-. It is therefore 8 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 submitted that the said award is just and proper and does not warrant any further enhancement. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record with utmost circumspection, especially the judgment under challenge herein. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 1 this Court is of the opinion that an addition of 30% towards future prospects is warranted. Accordingly, future prospects are awarded at the rate of 30% of the deceased’s income. 10. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noted that the present appeals arise out of the same accident, in which the liability had already been fastened upon the owner- cum-driver of the offending vehicle. The owner-cum-driver had earlier preferred an appeal bearing MAC No.1301 of 2016, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the said decision, the Court categorically held that the negligence and liability for payment of compensation rested with the appellant/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. It is further observed that although the insurance premium was paid 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 9 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 regularly for third-party coverage, the policy in question did not extend coverage to the pillion rider. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle, and no interference is called for in that regard. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The liability to satisfy the award is fastened upon the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, holding him solely responsible for the compensation payable to the claimants. 12. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head of future prospects in relation to the deceased Manohar, who was aged about 46 years at the time of his death. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) , the claimants are entitled to an addition of 30% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified as under: Sn. Heads Calculation 1. Income of the Deceased Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.35,000 x 12) 2. Future Prospect 30% Rs.1,26,000/- 3. Deduction 1/3 Rs.1,82,000/- 4. Total Income of the Deceased Rs.3,64,000/- (Rs.4,20,000/- + Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.1,82,000/-) 5. Multiplier of 13 Rs.47,32,000/- (Rs. 3,64,000 x 10 MAC No. 1701 of 2017 and MAC No. 474 of 2018 13) 6. Loss of Consortium (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3) 7. Loss of Estate (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs,18,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.18,000/- Total amount of compensation : Rs.49,12,000/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.49,12,000/- from Rs.37,00,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.12,12,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (9% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. Accordingly, both appeals, one preferred by the Insurance Company and the other by the Claimants are allowed; the former in its entirety and the latter in part. The award dated 17.08.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA