1 2025:CGHC:27764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1050 of 2018 1 - Ramchand Sahu S/o Late Hirde Ram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Gokulpur, Rampur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Kumari Bai, W/o Ramchand Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Gokulpur, Rampur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhushan Sahu S/o Shri Radheshyam Sahu, R/o Gokulpur, Rampur Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. O.R. -05-J-3436 New No. C.G. 05/9905), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - United India Insurance Compandy Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Krishna Complex 1st Floor, Jail Road Katchcheri Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. O.R. -05-J-3436 New No. C.G. 05/9905), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 24.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 123/2017. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 08.01.2003, the deceased, Guman Sahu, was traveling in a Maruti Van under the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 instructions and employment of respondent No. 1. On the early morning of 09.01.2003, at approximately 5:00 a.m., while passing near village Bhod Mode, Bastar, the vehicle met with a tragic accident. It is alleged that due to a technical fault in the vehicle, the Maruti Van lost control and collided with a tree. As a result of this unfortunate incident, the deceased, Guman Sahu, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The sudden and untimely demise of Guman Sahu compelled the claimants to initiate legal proceedings by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. The claimants prayed for an amount of Rs. 9,13,200/- on the grounds that the deceased was gainfully employed as a driver by respondent No. 1 and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further pleaded that the deceased was wholly dependent on this income and that his death caused substantial financial hardship to the claimants. In response, respondent No. 1 submitted its written statement denying the allegations of any technical fault in the vehicle. The respondent contended that the accident was not caused by any defect in the vehicle but was an unfortunate incident. Further, respondent No. 1 emphasized that the vehicle involved was duly insured with respondent No. 2, the insurance company, and thus any liability arising out of the accident should rightly be fastened upon the insurer, i.e., respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, the insurance company, filed its own reply denying the claim and refuting liability. The insurer asserted that the vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, it was contended that respondent No. 2 was not liable to indemnify any compensation awarded by the tribunal. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the learned Claims 3 Tribunal framed three key issues for determination. After hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal decided all issues in favor of the claimants, recognizing the liability of the respondents and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. However, the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal was found to be unsatisfactory by the appellants, leading to the filing of the present Miscellaneous Appeal to seek enhancement of the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is liable to be set aside as it is manifestly erroneous both in law and on the facts of the case. The learned tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it and has arrived at a decision that is neither just nor equitable. The impugned award does not reflect a fair and reasonable assessment of the loss suffered by the appellants due to the tragic demise of the deceased, Guman Sahu. The learned MACT has neglected crucial evidence and documentary material submitted by the appellants in support of their claim. The tribunal overlooked or undervalued relevant records which clearly established the monthly income of deceased, his dependency status, and the circumstances of the accident. Such failure on part of the tribunal amounts to a grave error in appreciation of facts and evidence, which has resulted in an inadequate and unjust compensation award. A fundamental error committed by the learned tribunal pertains to the deduction of 50% from the total income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. The claim was filed under Section 163-A 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which specifically mandates that only one- third of the income should be deducted to account for personal expenses while computing the compensation amount. By arbitrarily deducting half the income, the tribunal significantly reduced the compensation payable to the claimants, thereby causing undue prejudice to them. Apart from the incorrect deduction, the compensation awarded under other heads such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and conventional heads has been grossly inadequate and is on the lower side compared to the established norms and precedents. The appellants submit that the amount needs to be enhanced in order to meet the ends of justice and adequately compensate for the loss suffered. Another glaring omission in the award is the failure of the learned MACT to grant interest on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application. It is well-settled law that interest is to be awarded to compensate for the delay in payment of compensation, which the tribunal has unjustly withheld, causing further hardship to the appellants. In view of the foregoing submissions and in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal and enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 123/2017. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, submits that the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is wholly misconceived and without merit. The award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is 5 based on proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and applicable legal provisions. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are sound, well-reasoned, and do not warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted that the appellants have attempted to portray the deceased, Guman Sahu, as an employee of respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. However, no cogent documentary evidence was produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate the nature of employment, the alleged instructions under which the deceased was traveling, or the alleged monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. The learned Tribunal has rightly proceeded to assess the compensation on the limited and vague evidence that was made available, and any alleged insufficiency in compensation is a direct result of the appellants’ failure to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. From the record, it is established that the deceased Guman Sahu died in a motor accident while driving the insured vehicle. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the respondents are liable to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal had assessed compensation on the basis of the structured formula provided under the Second Schedule of the Act. However, a deduction of 50% toward personal expenses was applied, which is contrary to the applicable provision under Section 163-A. The prescribed deduction under the structured formula is one-third. Nonetheless, this aspect becomes academic in light of the Supreme Court's recent judgment in the matter of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Haldar, 6 reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 4983, which has capped compensation under Section 163-A at Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that "no compensation beyond Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be awarded in claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act." This legal position is binding and must be followed by all subordinate Courts. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,90,500/-. As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 9,500/-, thereby rounding off the total compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is the maximum permissible under Section 163-A of the Act. No compelling ground has been shown for further enhancement of the compensation, as the cap of Rs. 5 lakh is absolute under the governing law, irrespective of actual income, dependency, or other relevant factors. The arguments raised by the appellants regarding under-assessment of income and deductions are rendered immaterial in view of this legal ceiling. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs. 9,500/-, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation payable shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. 9. The rest of the conditions of the award, including the rate of interest and mode of disbursement, as directed by the learned Tribunal, shall remain unaltered. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Gopal Singh/Saxena JUDGE