1 2025:CGHC:29033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1542 of 2019 1. Chowalal Sahu S/o Shri Chunnuram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Asra, Police Station Panduka (Rajim), District Gariyaband (CG) (Driver of Tractor No.CG04-DA-9624), 2. Makhanlal Sahu S/o Shri Kanturam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Asra, Police Station Panduka (Rajim), District Gariyaband (CG) (Owner of Tractor No. CG04-DA-9624), ... Appellants versus 1. Smt. Yashoda Bai W/o Roshan Verma Aged About 30 Years 2. Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Thakurram Verma Aged About 48 Years both are resident of Village Singhauri, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents-claimants For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 30/6/2025 1. Appellants, driver and owner of offending vehicle, have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 16.4.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband 2 (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.28/2015 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of respondents in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,31,532/- against the appellants herein. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.12,10,000/- under various heads, against the death of deceased Roshan Verma in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow and mother of deceased, on 22.3.2015 at about 5:00 p.m. Roshan Verma was returning his village Sindhori from Panduka. On the way, one tractor bearing registration No.CG04-DA-9624, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, dashed his motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Roshan Verma sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 30 years of age, working in Sai Prasad Insurance Company and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed reply to application denying averments made therein including negligence alleged against non-applicant No.1. Occupation and income of the deceased has been denied on the ground that no clinching evidence in that regard has been brought on record. Claimants have 3 claimed exaggerated amount of compensation. Claim petition being baseless is liable to be dismissed. 4. Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 and accordingly, allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,31,532/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award overlooking that claimants failed to prove that offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1-driver. He further contended that claimants have failed to prove the occupation of deceased and income from that occupation and as such, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- p.m. by the Claims Tribunal on notional basis is on higher side. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-third amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It ought to have deducted one-half of the income looking to numbers of the dependents. Multiplier applied to assess the loss of dependency is also on higher side. Hence, the impugned awarded passed by the Claims Tribunal be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 4 supports the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. To prove the accident and negligence of driver of offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1, the claimants have examined Krishna (AW-2), an eyewitness, and also filed FIR (Ex.P-1) and charge sheet (Ex.P-2). Krishna (AW-2) has stated that on the date of accident, after darshan at Nirai Mata Temple, when he was returning to his village, on the way he saw that tractor bearing registration No. CG04-DA-9624 (offending vehicle) came to the side of Roshan Verma, dashed his motorcycle as a result he sustained grievous injury on his head and died on the spot. He further stated that Roshan Verma (deceased) was riding ahead of him. Evidence of this witness is supported by the contents of FIR (Ex.P-1), which was lodged immediately after the accident giving details of the vehicle that has caused accident, as also the post-mortem report (Ex.P-3), in which nature of death of deceased was mentioned as “accidental”. This witness was cross-examined by the counsel of non- applicants / appellants herein but nothing incriminating could be extracted so as to disbelieve his testimony. 9. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the non-applicant No.1-driver mentioning that the investigation done by the police revealed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 5 offending vehicle. Filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle is suggestive of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident and thus burden shifts on them to prove otherwise. However, appellants i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle, have not led any evidence in the claim proceeding to prove that the accident in question was not the outcome of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle or that the deceased was driving motorcycle rashly and negligently. Under these circumstances, learned Claims Tribunal taking into consideration the testimony of PW-2, FIR (Ex.P1) and Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-3) came to a conclusion that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1-driver. 10. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, driver of offending vehicle, is based on material and cogent evidence on record, which does not call for any interference in this appeal. 11. As regards the challenge to quantum of compensation, perusal of impugned award would show that since no documentary evidence had been adduced by claimants to establish occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in claim application, the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income 6 of deceased on notional basis treating him as an unskilled labourer. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal in assessing income of the deceased in absence of any clinching documentary proof with respect to occupation and income of deceased. It cannot be said to have assessed on higher side. Further, in the given facts of the case, addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of one-third from the assessed income of deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and application of multiplier of 17 by the Claims Tribunal are correct and affirmed. 12. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under each head, as discussed above, cannot be said to be exorbitant and hence, it does not call for any interference. 13. Consequently, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI