1 2025:CGHC:2546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1552 of 2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Area Office T.P. Nagar Korba District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Through- Legal Officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh......(Insurer) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shalu Pandey W/o Late Premprakash Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Muritram Sahu Chall Purani Basti, Korba Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgrah. (Claimant) 2 - Aditya Prakash Pandey S/o Late Prem Prakash Pandey Aged About 2 Years Res. No.2 Is Through His Mother Smt. Shalu Pandey, R/o Muritram Sahu Chall Purani Basti, Korba Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgrah......(Claimant) 3 - Satyam Chouhan S/o Lakheshwar Prasad Chouhan Aged About 32 Years R/o Katainar P.S. Bankimongra Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Driver), 4 - Lakhan Lal S/o Ramsharan Prasad R/o Surakachar S.E.C.L. Tehsil- Kotghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Owner) 5 - Badriprasad Pandey S/o Late Saheblal Pandey Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Umreli, Tehsil Kartal Distirct- Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Father Of Deceased) 6 - Rukhmani Pandey S/o Badri Prasad Pandey Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Umreli, Tehsil Kartal District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.....(Mother Of Deceased) ... Respondent(s) For appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) 1 & 2 : Mr. AL Singhroul, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.17 14:41:51 +0530 2 15/01/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the legality and propriety of award dated 23.6.2018 passed by Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Distt. Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.87/2015, by which the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, on 25.01.2015 deceased Prem Prakash Pandey was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 10 EL 3747 from Kharmora to Old Basti Korba. At that time, driver of the Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.CG 12 R 2937 came from opposite direction hit the motor cycle driven by the deceased, as a result of which, Prem Prakash Pandey suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment. By filing application under Section 166 of the Act 1988, the claimants/ respondents 1 to 2 sought compensation from non-applicants. Vide impugned award dated 23.6.2018, the learned Claim Tribunal partly allowed the application filed by the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.17,93,600/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till date of payment of amount of compensation to the claimants. By filing this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award. 3. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of evidence, material placed on record and submission made by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Satyam Chouhan, who was driving Alto Car (for short ‘offending vehicle’) and the same was owned by Lakhan Lal, which 3 dashed the motor cycle driven by the deceased, who died on account of injury sustained to him in the aforesaid accident. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, who is insurer of the offending vehicle, was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants as it could not establish the violation of policy condition and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal has been filed on two counts. Firstly, he referring to the deposition of the driver of the offending vehicle Satyam Chouhan (NAW-1), submits that aforesaid witness clearly stated that the accident did not occur due to his negligence, rather the deceased himself was driving the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and after skidding of the motor cycle, he fell down from the motor cycle. Secondly, while referring to the award passed by the Tribunal, he would further submit that the Tribunal itself has held in para 14 of the award that the claimants have failed to prove occupation and income of the deceased, despite that, without any cogent evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, in the year 2015, minimum wages for skilled labour was Rs.5959/-, therefore, learned counsel submits that if the insurance company is not exonerated, the amount of award may be reduced suitably. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supports the impugned award and would submit that award passed by the tribunal is based on evidence available on record, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 7. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to liability of negligence is concerned, though Satyam Chouhan (NAW-1) has stated in his deposition that at the place of incident, there is a blind turn and the deceased himself was driving the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, therefore, after skidding of the motor cycle, he fell down and his motor cycle came in front of the offending vehicle. But such suggestion has not been taken by the Advocate appearing for the non- applicants from Ram Ratan Sharma (AW-2), who is eyewitness of the incident. Further the applicants have filed certified copy of the spot map (Ex- P/7) prepared by the police. Perusal of that spot map shows that offending vehicle itself was turning on wrong side of the road, therefore, the accident occurred. Further, on being FIR lodged by the police, investigation was got done and police has charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, only on the basis of said statement made by driver Satyam Chouhan (NAW-1), it cannot be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, as such, contention raised by the appellant in this regard is not found to be just and proper, hence, the same is rejected and finding of the Tribunal with regard to fact that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle is upheld. 8. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the applicants have filed certificate to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, who was said to be working as supervisor in DV Projects Ltd. In this regard, they have filed certificate Ex-P/11 issued by Director of the said project, but it has not been proved by examining the issuing authority or the primary documents in this regard, as provided under Section 64 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, only on the basis of uncorroborated statement of applicant Smt. Shalu Pandey (AW-1), content of the aforesaid documents cannot held proved. But 5 from the record, it seems that the deceased was working in the aforesaid project, therefore, his monthly income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.8,000/- is reduced to the level of skilled labour. It has been observed by the Tribunal that minimum wages for skilled labour for the year 2015 (year of the accident) fixed by the Collector, Korba was Rs.5959/-. As such, monthly notional income of the deceased is assessed to the tune of Rs.5959/- per month and on being round off Rs.6000/- per month. Therefore, assessment of total amount of compensation is required to be reassessed. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, amount of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is hereby modified as under:- Sl. No. (1) Head (2) Awarded by the Tribunal (3) Awarded by this Court (4) 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 8,000/- ₹ 6,000/- ₹ 2. Annual Income of the deceased ₹96,000/- 72,000/- ₹ 3. Deduction towards personal and living expenses ¼ deduction (96000 x ¼ = 24000) ₹96,000/- - ₹24,000/- = ₹72,000/- ¼ deduction (72000 x 1/4= 18000) ₹72,000/- - 18,000 = ₹ 54000/- ₹ 4. Future prospect 40% (72000 x 40% = 28800) ₹72,000 + ₹28,800 = 1,00,800/- ₹ 40% (54000x 40% = 21600) ₹54,000, + ₹21,600 = ₹75,600 /- 5. Multiplier for assessing total loss of dependency Multiplier 17 ₹1,00,800/- x 17 = ₹17,13,600/- Multiplier 17 ₹75,600/- x 17 = ₹12,85,200/- 6. Loss of consortium ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/- 7. Loss of estate ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- 8. Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- 9. Medical expenses and transporting to Bilaspur for treatment ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/- 10. Total Compensation 17,93,600/- ₹ 13,65,200/- ₹ 6 10. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.13,65,200/- instead of Rs.17,93,600/-. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is allowed in part and impugned award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.17,93,600/- awarded to the claimants by the Claim Tribunal is reduced to Rs.13,65,200/- and this amount shall carry interest 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 12. Disbursement of amount as made by the Tribunal between the applicants and respondents 5 & 6, who are parents of the deceased, shall be proportionately reduced accordingly. Other terms of the award passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 13. The award stands modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini