1 2025:CGHC:46306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1633 of 2018 1 - Hitesh Kumar Yadaw S/o Late Ashok Kumar Yadaw Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post - Bhatapara District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh At Present Gitanjali City Bahtarai, Police Station Sarkanda, District (Revenue And Civil) - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Bharatlal Yadaw S/o Vedram Yadaw Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhardei, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 11 M.B. 4152), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office Near Tata Show Room Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate MAC No. 1954 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vyapar Vihar, Opposite Tata Show Room Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory, Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh......(N.A. No.2), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Hitesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Gitanjali City, Bahtarai P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharatlal Yadav S/o Vedram Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhardei, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh........(Driver/owner Of The Offending Motor Cycle C.G. 11 Nb 4152).............(Claimant), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SHAYNA KADRI Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. The present appeals are being decided by this common order, as both arise out of the same award dated 11.07.2018 passed by the First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 352/2017. M.A.C. No. 1633 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 1954 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability imposed upon it by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 19.02.2017, the deceased, Smt. Uma Devi, had travelled to Village Dhardei in order to visit her ailing father. After spending a few days there, on 28.02.2017, she was returning to Bilaspur with the intention of meeting her son, the present applicant. For this journey, she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by Bharatlal Yadav / non-applicant No. 01. It is alleged that while they were proceeding towards Bilaspur, and upon reaching a turn near a speed breaker located ahead of Village Pendri Talab, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Masturi. Bharatlal Yadav / non-applicant No. 01, while riding the motorcycle, 3 drove it in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic norms or exercising due care and caution. As a result, the motorcycle lost balance and met with an accident, causing Smt. Uma Devi to suffer grievous injuries. Following the accident, she was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre at Masturi for initial medical assistance. However, given the seriousness of her condition, she was referred to Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS), Bilaspur. Subsequently, her treatment continued at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, and thereafter at Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur. Despite receiving continuous medical treatment at these institutions, Smt. Uma Devi succumbed to her injuries and was declared dead on 04.03.2017 during the course of treatment at Life Care Hospital. In connection with the said incident, the police at Police Station Masturi registered Crime No. 170/17, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was filed against Bharatlal Yadav / non-applicant No. 01 before the competent criminal Court. The said criminal case is stated to be pending adjudication. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimants in M.A.C. No. 1633 of 2018 submits that the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is neither just nor proper, and therefore, deserves to be set aside and enhanced in the interest of justice. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has failed to 4 properly assess the compensation payable, thereby causing grave injustice to the appellant/claimant who has suffered significant loss. In particular, the tribunal erred in its calculation of the amount of pension by applying an incorrect multiplier. A correct calculation, considering the proper multiplier and the facts of the case, would result in a compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,620/-, which is considerably higher than the amount awarded by the tribunal. Such a calculation is essential to fairly compensate the appellant/claimant for the loss of financial support sustained due to the untimely death of the deceased. Furthermore, the learned tribunal committed an error in deducting income tax on the head of future prospects. It is well settled in law that compensation under the head of future prospects is awarded to account for the anticipated increase in the earning capacity of the deceased and is not subject to income tax deductions. Such deductions unjustly reduce the rightful compensation payable to the claimant and undermine the very purpose of awarding future prospects. Additionally, the appellant/claimant submits that the learned tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident until the payment of the awarded amount. The grant of such interest is warranted on the grounds of delay in realization of the compensation, which causes financial hardship and loss to the claimant. The imposition of interest would serve as just compensation for the loss of use of 5 money during the intervening period. It is also submitted that the multiplier applied by the tribunal was erroneous. The tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 to calculate the compensation; however, having regard to the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 12 should have been applied. The choice of multiplier is a crucial factor in arriving at fair compensation, and a lower multiplier results in an unjustly diminished award. Therefore, the multiplier of 12 ought to have been adopted, ensuring that the claimant receives an amount commensurate with the loss suffered. Moreover, the tribunal failed to consider and award compensation on the head of pain and suffering endured by the deceased prior to death, as well as the mental anguish caused to the appellant/claimant. Such heads of damages are recognized under law and their omission amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice. The appellant/claimant is entitled to just and fair compensation in respect of these non-pecuniary losses. The learned tribunal also overlooked the necessity to grant amounts under the heads of diet, traveling expenses, and attendant charges. These expenses are genuine, reasonable, and were necessarily incurred by the claimant in the care and treatment of the deceased before his demise. The failure to award these expenses has resulted in further financial prejudice to the claimant. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the 6 impugned award, and enhance the compensation amount in a fair and just manner. The appellant further prays for the grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till realization of the awarded compensation. 4. Learned counsel for insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is just, fair, and based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law. The contention that the compensation is inadequate and requires enhancement is misconceived. The tribunal rightly applied the multiplier and assessed the pension amount in accordance with the evidence on record. There is no merit in the claim that income tax deduction on future prospects was erroneous, as such deductions are in line with settled legal principles. The claim for interest at 12% is also not justified, as the decision of Tribunal on interest is reasonable. The tribunal duly considered all relevant heads of damages, and there is no omission in awarding compensation for pain and suffering or other expenses. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for Insurance Company in M.A.C. No. 1954 of 2018 that the learned Claims Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the entire scenario and the material facts put forth by the claimant, which are crucial to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. The learned tribunal did not properly consider the core of the defense, which 7 revolves around the non-disclosure of the accident promptly by the claimant and other relatives of the deceased. This omission and the subsequent conduct of the claimant and the relatives create substantial doubt about the veracity of the claim. It is further submitted that the tribunal erred in failing to recognize that in cases of accidental death, conducting a postmortem examination is a mandatory legal requirement to ascertain the true cause of death. Despite repeated advice and directions by the medical authorities, the claimant and other relatives deliberately avoided undergoing the postmortem. This non- compliance and the failure to disclose the accidental death promptly reflect seriously on the credibility of claimant and cast a shadow of doubt over the entire claim. Moreover, the tribunal overlooked the fact that an eyewitness, who is allegedly a close relative of the claimant and could have corroborated the genuineness of the claim, was not examined. The non- examination of such a vital witness weakens the case of claimant and this crucial aspect was ignored by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the pension received by the deceased in her capacity as the widow of an employee cannot be treated as loss of income for the benefit of the major son. Such treatment is contrary to established principles of law and fact. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance 8 Company and exonerate the appellant insurance company from all liabilities, in the interest of justice and equity. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. The Insurance Company has challenged the liability imposed upon it primarily on grounds of alleged non-disclosure of the accident and avoidance of postmortem examination by the claimants. It is contended that such non-compliance casts doubt on the genuineness of the claim. 8. This Court, after perusing the record, finds that the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident and consequent death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The delay or avoidance of postmortem, though not ideal, does not absolve the insurer of liability where the accident and death are otherwise proven. Further, the non-examination of certain eyewitnesses does not vitiate the claim, particularly when documentary and medical evidence substantiate the occurrence. Regarding the pension, the Tribunal has correctly noted that the pension received by the deceased in her capacity as a widow of an employee does not constitute income for the benefit of the major son as loss of income. The calculation of loss has been done reasonably and not arbitrarily. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is thus without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9 9. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in M.A.C. No. 1954 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. 10. Further, upon careful perusal of the record and the impugned award, this Court finds that The Tribunal has rightly applied deduction in respect of the personal expenses of the deceased, which is a settled principle in calculation of loss of dependency. Therefore, no interference is warranted on this aspect. However, it is observed that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the claimants. It is well- settled that loss of consortium is a recognized head of damage payable to the spouse or close family members of the deceased. In the facts of the present case, the appellant is entitled to compensation on this head. 11. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court grants Rs. 48,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium, along with interest @ 10% per annum (40,000/- + 10% + 10%)(with increase of 10% in every three years) from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years, i.e. Rs. 6000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expense (Rs. 18,000/- - 15,000/- already given to the claimants towards loss of estate and funeral expense). As regards other points raised by the appellant regarding multiplier, future prospects and deduction of income tax 10 on the awarded amount, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and applied the law correctly. The multiplier applied is justified in view of the age of the deceased and other relevant factors. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum awarded on these counts. 12. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 31,89,639/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01. Towards loss of Dependency Rs. 29,23,822/- 02. Towards Medical Expense Rs. 1,81,817 03. Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000+10% +10%). Rs. 48,000/- 04. Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. (15,000+3,000) Rs. 18,000/- 05. Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. (15,000+3,000) Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 31,89,639/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is Calculated to Rs. 31,89,639/- in place of Rs. 31,35,639/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs. 54,000/-, which shall carry interest at the 11 same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 11.07.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE