1 2025:CGHC:23093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 19.03.2025. Judgment Delivered on 11.06.2025 MAC No. 777 of 2017 1 - Ramesh Mehra S/o Ramlal Mehra, aged about 55 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Pathhalgaon, Thana and Tahsil Pathhalgaon, Distt. Jashpur, (C.G.)……...Owner. 2 - Kaseem Ali S/o Ishlam, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Sohga Thana Darima Distt. Sarguja, (C.G.) At present Jajga, Thana Seetapur Distt. Sarguja, (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Meera Devi Wd/o Late Vallabh Sao, aged about 47 years, R/o Village & Post Kudekela Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.) 2 - Ranjit S/o Late Vallabh Sao, aged about 27 years, R/o Village and Post Kudekela Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.) ……………………….Respondents/Claimants 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. Sada Complex Korba, Distt. Korba, (C.G.) .............Non Applicant No.3. ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgment 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 102/2014, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 06,06,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that this appeal is preferred by the owner and driver of the vehicle against the award dated 27.02.2017, by which Learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) and fixed the liability over appellants for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 06,06,000/-. The respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants have filed the Claim Case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh (C.G.), on the pleading inter- alia that on 29.04.2014 at about 11.15 am. The deceased namely Sujeet Kumar was driving the motor cycle No. C.G./13/S/4818, when they reached near Village Sithara at that time the Bus coming from front side and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased due to rash negligent driving of appellant No. 2, as a result of which Sujeet sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. It was further pleaded by the claimants that the appellant No. 2 has been driving the offending vehicle Bus C.G./14/G/2511 rashly and negligently on the road due to which accident took place and Sujeet died, respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the vehicle. 3. The appellants filed written statement. It was submitted that the appellant No. 2 was having valid driving license and vehicle was 3 insured with respondent No.3 (Insurance Company). Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) pleaded that at the time of accident, the appellant No. 2 was not having valid driving license hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties, by its award dated 27.02.2017 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 06,06,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the appellants are liable to pay the amount of the compensation and further exonerated the Insurance company from the liability. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 06,06,000/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is patently illegal, arbitrary and erroneous, hence liable to be set aside. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants are liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants. The appeal and cross- appeal is filed by the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal completely overlooked the statement of respondent No. 1, who has clearly stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 i.e., Insurance Company and the insurance company had issued the cover note of the offending vehicle, the Bus. The learned Claims Tribunal completely overlooked the statement of appellants who have clearly stated that they have filed a criminal case against the officer of insurance company. The learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the fact that appellant No. 2 was wrongfully driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, whereas the fact is 4 that the offending vehicle has been driven with due care and vigilance. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased net income was Rs. 54,000/- yearly whereas the claimants have not produced any document related to income. Learned Claims Tribunal wrongly exonerated the insurance company from its liability, so the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in this regard are liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have strongly supported the argument of the appellants and submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in relation to exoneration of Insurance Company is liable to be set aside and they also filed a cross-appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of sum. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not properly marshaled the evidence of the parties. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side, the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month instead of Rs. 6,000/- per month and also learned Claims Tribunal passed very meagre amount in other heads and the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered any amount for future income, so this cross-appeal may be allowed and the award is liable to be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly exonerated the Insurance Company, and the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly calculated the award in all heads, so this appeal and cross- 5 appeal are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from record of learned Claims Tribunal that claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed claim case against appellants for compensation of death of Mr. Sujeet Kumar in accident dated 29.04.2014. The learned Tribunal framed issues No. 1 to 6 which are reproduced herein under for ready reference:- क्रमांक वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष 01- क्या निदांक 29-04-2014 को अावेदक हाँ क्रमांक- 02 द्वारा हेमकु ण्ड बस वाह क्रमांक सी.जी. 14-जी/2511 को तेज गतित व लापवाहीपूवक चलाकर दुर्घटा कारिरत निकया? अथवा क्या उक्त दुर्घटा मृतक मोटर सायनिकल चालक हाँ स्वयं की लापवाही का परिरणाम थी? 02- क्या उक्त दुर्घटा के परिरणामस्वरुप सुजीत कु मार हाँ साव की मृत्यु कारिरत हुई? 03- क्या आवेनिदकागण क्षतितपूर्तित प्राप्त करे के अति8कारी हाँ हैं यनिद "हाँ" तो निकती राशि< और निकस अोवदक से? आवेनिदकागण, अावेदक क्रमांक 01 एवम् 02 से संयुक्तततः एवम् पृथकतः क्षतितपूर्तित राशि< 6,06,000/- रुपये ( अक्षरी - छः लाख छः हजार रूपये) प्राप्त करे के अति8कारी हैं । 04- क्या दुर्घटा निदांक को अावेदक क्रमांक-02 हीं 6 के पास वै8 एवम् प्रभाव<ाली ड्रायविंवग लायसेंस हीं था? यनिद "हाँ" तो प्रभाव? 05- क्या कशिथत वाह का उपयोग बीमा <तM के उल्लंर्घ दुर्घटा कारिरत करे में निकया जा रहा था ? यनिद "हाँ" तो प्रभाव? वाली बस वाह क्रमांक सी.जी. 14/जी-2511 दुर्घटा निदांक 29- 04-2014 को अावेदक क्रमांक 03 के पास बीनिमत हीं थी । 06- अुतोर्ष एवम् व्यय? अति8निणय की अंतितम् कण्डिण्डका अुसार । 10. (PW-01) Ranjit Sao, brother of the deceased has stated that his brother died on 29.04.2014 and this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and he also filed charge-sheet Ex. P/01, F.I.R Ex. P/02, morgue intimation Ex. P/03, Dehati Morgue Ex. P/04, Inquest notice Ex. P/05, Inquest memo Ex. P/06, Post martem report Ex. P/07, seizure memo Ex. P/08 & Ex. P/09 & arrest memo Ex. P/10. The eye witness Ajay Sao (PW-02) stated that he was going to market with deceased Sujeet Kumar on motorcycle, where the eye witness was a pillion rider and he further stated that he saw the driver of bus Hemkund company came towards them speedily and upon noticing the same beforehand the deceased stopped the motorcycle aside and stepped away and as there was speed-breaker the bus jumped and its tie rod broke resulting into non working of steering and the bus dragged Sujeet Kumar and went some distance by doing so, as such Sujeet Kumar was died on the spot and the eye witness Ajay Sao (PW-02) informed in the police station Dharmajaygarh, Raigarh (C.G.) and 7 police lodged dehati morgue on his information and he admitted his signature on dehati morgue intimation. Learned tribunal also minutely appreciated the statement of both witnesses and also certified copy of criminal case which was registered against bus driver- Kaseem Ali and gave this finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 01/appellant No. 1. 11. Learned tribunal in issue No. 5 appreciated this fact that non- applicants No. 01 & 2 filed covered note of insurance company and they have failed to produce insurance policy and original cover note. Non-applicant No. 01 stated that he paid premium amount of Rs. Rs. 39,052/- to Mukesh Kumar Jain Development Officer of New India Insurance Company and he sent cover note, but he did not send the insurance policy, so he filed written complaint against Mukesh Kumar Jain at Police Station Pathhalgaon on 14.03.2015 and acknowledgment of this report is Ex. D/05. Mukesh Kumar Jain examined by Insurance Company (non-applicant No. 3) who stated that he did not receive any premium amount from non-applicant No. 01 or non-applicant No. 02 and he did not issue any cover note and photocopy filed by owner and driver is fake and there is no sign of him anywhere in this photocopy and he also filed cover note, issued register of insurance company and copy of this register is Ex. D/06 and as per this register, there is no entry being made of any cover note in favour of non-applicant No. 01 regarding offending vehicle from 23.01.2013 to 10.12.2014 and he clearly stated that his company did not issue any insurance policy regarding bus No. CG-14-G-2511 and this bus was not insured at the time of accident with his company. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly finds that on the date of incident, the 8 offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company non- applicant No. 03/respondent No. 3. So, the appeal filed by appellants No. 1 & 2 is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. As regards cross-appeal of the claimants, it is clear that the learned trial Court calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month and it is clear that the incident was occurred on 29.04.2014 and at that time the minimum wages of unskilled labour was 5,468/- and it is also clear that the learned Tribunal did not calculate the future prospect and in other head also the learned Tribunal awarded very meager amount. However, it appears to have fallen in error in assessing the other heads. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is suitably enhanced. Head Awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) Income 54,000/- p.a (Rs.4,500/- per month x 12) 65,616/- (Rs.5,468/- per month x 12) Future Prospects Nil (40 % of 65,616/- = 91,862/-) Loss of dependency ½ of 54,000/- =27,000/- ½ of 91862=45,931/- Mulltiplier 18 18 Loss of income 4,86,000/- 8,26,758/- Other conventiona l head Funeral expenses= 20,000/- Parental consortium to Funeral Expenses- 15,000/- Loss of Estate- 15,000/- parental consortium to claimant No. 1 Rs. 40,000/- loss of love and affection to 9 claimant No. 1 Rs. 50,000/- loss of love and affection to claimant No. 2 Rs. 50,000/- total amount= Rs.1,20,000/- claimant No. 2 Rs. 40,000/- Total amount= Rs. 1,10,000/- Total compensati on awarded Rs. 6,06,000/- Rs. 9,36,758/- 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 9,36,758/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.6,06,000/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 3,30,758/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants No. 01 & 02 is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and cross-appeal filed by respondents/claimants No. 01 & 02 is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju