1 2025:CGHC:19189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 928 of 2017 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Aged About 18 Years Plot No.1, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303022. (Insurer of Max Pickup No. C.G.18 H 0684). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Laxman, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Mailawada Pujaripara, Thana Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Santosh Nag S/o Late Laxman, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Mailawada Pujaripara, Thana Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dinesh Nag S/o Late Laxman, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Mailawada Pujaripara, Thana Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Babloo Nag S/o Late Laxman, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Shanti Bai, R/o Village Mailawada Pujaripara, Thana Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rajau Ram S/o Tirathuram, Aged About 25 Years R/o Kirandul Dharampur Camp, Thana Kirandul District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Max Pickup No. C.G.18 H 0684). Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.29 17:40:05 +0530 2 6 - Smt. Meena Soni W/o Shri Vijay Soni, R/o Main Market, Kirandul, Tahsil Kuakonda, Thana Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Max Pickup No. C.G.18 H 0684). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Adv. For other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board 28 / 04 / 202 5 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 49/2014 (Smt. Shanti Bai & Ors. vs. Rajau Ram & Ors.). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, were that the deceased Ramesh @ Mahesh Nag was travelling in the Max Pickup No. CG-18-H-0684 (for short offending vehicle), at that time, the respondent No. 5 herein driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the electricity pole near the village Dhurli Ashram. Due to the said accident, Ramesh @ Mahesh Nag sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted to the district Hospital Dantewada, where he died during treatment. A report was made to the police station, and a crime was registered. 3. A claim application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the mother and brothers (respondents No. 1 to 4) of the deceased (Ramesh 3 @ Mahesh Nag) claiming a total compensation of Rs. 21,60,000/-. After due consideration, the Tribunal passed a total award of Rs. 5,06,000/- in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) and against the insurer/appellant. Hence, the appeal. 4. The appellant/insurance company argues that the deceased Ramesh alias Mahesh Nag was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle insured by it. The offending vehicle, which is a goods carrier vehicle, had 5-6 persons travelling as passengers. Thus, the risk of gratuitous passengers is not covered. The Tribunal has committed an error holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. The appeal is liable to be allowed, and the appellant/insurance company is entitled to be exonerated from its liability. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is on the higher side, as the deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses was wrongly calculated, since the deceased was unmarried, it should be 1/2. Thus, the compensation may be reduced suitably. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed and submitted that the deceased's income has been calculated on the lower side. Future Prospects has not been added to the income of the deceased, and the compensation given on the other heads is also on the lower side. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. In the case in hand, on behalf of the appellant/insurance company, legal assistant Ramesh Sinha (NAW-1) has been examined who has confirmed the statement and said that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending goods vehicle and at the time of the accident, the 4 vehicle was being driven with 5-6 passengers more than the seating capacity. According to the police documents, the deceased was travelling in the trolley of the pickup. Therefore, the terms of insurance have been violated, and the deceased's risk is not covered by being a gratuitous passenger. The insurance company should be exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation. 8. It is noteworthy that the legal officer of the insurance company, Ramesh Sinha (NAW-1), is not a witness to the spot. Santosh Nag (AW-1), the brother of the deceased, has been examined by the claimant side. His examination has not revealed any such fact which can be believed that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and that there were 4-5 other passengers in it. The police documents, i.e. inquest information Ex.A-1, FIR Ex.A-2, Map panchayat Ex.A-3, postmortem application and report Ex.A-4, seizure memo Ex.A-5, have been produced by the claimants. It is mentioned in them that there were other passengers in the offending vehicle, but there is no clear mention of the fact that the deceased was sitting in the trolley of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 9. Thus, from the evidence presented, the insurance company has not been able to establish that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and was travelling in the trolley. Rather, as per the claim application, the claimant witness Santosh Nag (AW-1) has stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle for the work of the vehicle owner, who was a labourer at Radhika Tent House, Bacheli. The burden of proof for the violation of insurance conditions lies on the insurance company, but the insurance company has failed 5 to discharge the said burden of proof. According to the insurance policy Ex.NA-1, a premium of Rs. 50/- has been paid for the employee of the vehicle, a premium of Rs. 50/- for the porter and a premium of Rs. 50/- for the paid driver. The deceased has been stated to be travelling in the vehicle for the work of the vehicle owner. There is no evidence in this regard that he was a gratuitous passenger. There is also no evidence in this regard that he was travelling in the trolley. Thus, the insurance company has failed to prove that the risk of the deceased was not covered. It has also failed to prove that the deceased was travelling in a cart or trolley. In this situation, no interference is required in the conclusion given by the Tribunal in this regard. 10. The second argument of the insurance company is that the deceased was unmarried whereas the deduction in the case decided by the Tribunal is 1/4 which should have been 1/2. 11. As regards quantum, from the evidence presented by the claimants' side, it is clear that the age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of the accident, and he was a non- salaried person. Therefore, the future prospects would be 40%, which has not been applied by the claims tribunal. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month. The accident occurred on 22.05.2013. If, as per the notification by Chhattisgarh State, the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was taken Rs.4,943/- per month i.e. 59,316/- per annum. Further, if 40% of the income is added towards future prospects and there are 4 legal representatives of the deceased, and the deceased was unmarried at that time so deduction would be 1/2nd of the income, and after deduction in view of judgment of the 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 as 25, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes excesses to the award passed by the claims tribunal. In addition, as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards love & affection, totaling Rs.1,60,000. They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As such, on being calculated as a whole, the compensation amount would be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In such a situation, the argument of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in favour of the claimants, is not found acceptable. 13. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu