1 2025:CGHC:20859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1475 of 2019 1 - Mu. Kamla Bage Bhagat W/o Late Ramnath Bhagat Aged About 50 Years By Caste- Uraon, R/o Village Patrapali, Dokda, Tahsil- Kansabel, At Present Village Narayanpur, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tejpratap Bhagat S/o Late Ramnath Bhagat Aged About 24 Years Caste-Uraon, R/o Village Patrapali, Dokda, Tahsil- Kansabel, At Present Village Narayanpur, Tahsil-Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ashok Pradhan S/o Late Kaushal Pradhan Aged About 30 Years Caste- Bhuiyan, R/o Village Lawakera, Tahsil-Farsabahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Virendra Sah S/o Budhan Sahu Caste-Sah, R/o Village Lawakera, Tahsil-Farsabahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-Sundergarh (Odisha), Local Divisional Office, Sada Complex Transport Nagar Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. For other respondents : None. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.09 16:41:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board ( 07 . 05 .202 5 ) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2019, passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri to the Additional Claims Tribunal, District - Jashpur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 43/2014, whereby the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been rejected. 2. The gist of the claims before the Claims Tribunal, in brief, was that on 06.03.2014, deceased Ramnath Bhagat was driving a motorcycle, at that time, near Rede main road, an unknown vehicle dashed into the motorcycle. Later on, it came to know that the said offending vehicle was a Tata pickup bearing registration No. OR-16-E-3642, which was driven by driver Ashok Pradahan, respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, due to the said accident, Ramnath Bahgat, sustained grievous injuries and died on 07.03.2014 during the course of the treatment. The matter was reported to the police, and a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 3. In the claim filed by the claimants before the claims tribunal, it was stated that the deceased Ramnath Bhagat was aged about 55 years on the date of the accident, and he was a headmaster in the government school from where he was drawing a salary of Rs. 52,355 per month, due to the causal death of the deceased, they have suffered irreparable loss, therefore, a claim application under Section 166 of M.V. Act has been filed by them claiming a total compensation of Rs. 83,47,820/-. 4. The learned claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, dismissed the claim petition filed by the heirs of the deceased Ramnath Bhagat, 3 who were the claimants, on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of the driver. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned claims tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants on the erroneous ground that the claimants have failed to prove the occurrence of the accident in the absence of any eyewitness. He further submits that the learned claims tribunal has failed to appreciate that, arising out of the accident, an FIR was registered and the respondent No. 1 was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, and the respondents No. 1 & 2 have not made any complaint regarding false implication of the offending pick-up. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the appellants are entitled to get a just and proper compensation in the interest of justice. He also prays to apply the principle of ‘Pay and Recover’. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record which does not call for any interference. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the case, on behalf of the claimant, the wife of the deceased, Kamla Baghe (AW-1) and the witness of the scene, Sulasai (AW-2), have been examined. It is clear from the evidence presented that the charge sheet has been presented by the police against Ashok Pradhan, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Pickup. It is not the fact that the driver or owner of the offending vehicle challenged it, even though the driver or owner has not clearly denied the accident in their written statement, nor has any witness been examined on their behalf. As a witness to the 4 scene, Sulasai has said that the accident happened due to the negligence and rashness of the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Keeping in view the report with a delay of 26-27 days, the Tribunal has not believed the evidence presented by the claimant side, which is not found to be correct. According to the Inquest Report Ex.A-6 presented by the claimant side, it is clear that Ramnath Bhagat died in a vehicle accident, which Inquest Report was prepared only on 08.03.2014, i.e. 02 days after the accident. As a witness to the spot, Sulasai has supported the claim of the claimant party. Although he has said that he saw the accident from a distance of 50-60 meters, there is no reason to disbelieve him; his statement is supported by the charge sheet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the opinion in this regard in paragraph 4 of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.-10351/2019 (Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr.), which reads as under:- “4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 9. In the light of the aforesaid evidence and the judgment presented, this Court finds that it has been proved that the death of Ramnath Bhagat was caused by the injuries sustained in the collision due to the negligent and rash driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1. 10. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, in that context, it is clear from the pleadings and evidence presented by the claimant side that at the time of death in the accident, Ramnath Bhagat was 55 years old and was a Head master. Mrs. S. Minj (AW-3) from the appellant’s side, 5 stating as the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Pathalgaon, has presented the salary particulars of the deceased vide Ex. A-11 & 12, Pay Bill Register is Ex.A- 12 and the salary certificate prepared on its basis is Ex.A- 11, since the document Ex.A-11 has been prepared on the basis of Ex.A-12 and Mrs. S. Minj has shown the salary of the month of February, 2014, just before the death of Ramnath Bhagat, which is stated as gross salary of Rs. 49,771/- as per Ex.A-12, thus the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,97,252/-. Since the deceased was a salaried person aged around 55 years at the time of the accident, as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 15%. After adding 15% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.89,587.8/- in round figure Rs. 89,588/-, the annual income comes to Rs.6,86,840/-. 11. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2013-2014 was as follows:- Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2013-14 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2 lakh nil Rs. 2,00,000/- nil 2,00,001 to 5 lakh 10% Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 5,00,001 to 10 lakh 20% Rs.1,86,840/- Rs. 37,368/- Total Tax Rs. 67,368/- 12.In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.6,19,472 (6,86,840 – 67,368). 13.The deceased was aged about 55 years and was married and the claimants are 2 in number, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd i.e. Rs.2,06,490.6/- in round figure Rs. 2,06,491/-. After deduction of personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs.4,12,981/- 6 (6,19,472-2,06,491). In view of judgment of the 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, the multiplier of 11 would be applicable. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.45,42,791/- (4,12,981 x 11). The claimants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. 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/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 46,52,791 in the following manner:- Heads Calculation Compensation towards loss of dependency 45,42,791 Loss of estate 15,000 Rs. 40,000/- each, towards love and affection to both the claimants 80,000 Funeral Expenses 15,000 Total Rs. 46,52,791 14.Thus, the total compensation is computed as Rs.46,52,791/-. 15.In this case, on the basis of the pleadings of the insurance company, the Tribunal had framed the issue of breach of insurance conditions, on which the evidence has been discussed in paragraphs 12 to 14. No pleading was made by the driver in his written statement regarding the driving 7 license. No evidence was also presented on his behalf. The driving license of the driver Ashok Pradhan/respondent No. 1 presented by the claimant was declared fake and the statement of Anup Kerketta (NAW-1) and Harischandra Prasad (NAW-2) was recorded on behalf of the insurance company, on the basis of whose statement the Tribunal found that it was a fake driving license and the policy was breached as the vehicle was driven in the absence of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Thus, the discussion made by the Tribunal in paragraphs 12 to 14 is proper. Accordingly, a breach of policy conditions is found. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants stands partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled to get a compensation of Rs.46,52,791/-. The compensation amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of the claim petition presented before claims tribunal till its realization. 17. So far as the oral prayer of the counsel for claimants/appellants to apply the principle of pay and recover order is concerned, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2018(3) KHC 197, I direct the insurance company/respondent to first pay the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. The award impugned is modified to the extent indicated herein above. 18. Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. 8 19. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu