1 2025:CGHC:48956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1763 of 2019  Sakshi Travels Through Its Owner Lesly David S/o Late Shri S. Ratnan Aged About 46 Years R/o Q. No. 7/f, Street No.1, Jone-3, Sector-11, Khursipar Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Non-Applicant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Hemlal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Padetola, Tahsil And Block- Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Currnet Address- Q. No. 05-1, Street No. 33, Sector-7, Civic Center, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Ashok Kumar Bharti S/o Thakur Ram Bharti Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jarvaiya, Post- Bhansuli, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. The Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House P.S.- Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........ (Claiment), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1287 of 2019 1. Mahesh Kumar Tandan S/o Late Krishna Murari Tandan Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 146, Parna, Khursipar,tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o House No. 05, I Street No. 33, Sector 07, Bhilai Civil Centre, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Krishna Murari Tandan Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 146, Parna, Khursipar,tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o House No. 05, I Street No. 33, Sector 07, Bhilai Civil Centre, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Ratna W/o Yashpal Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 146, Parna, Khursipar,tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o House No. 05, I Street No. 33, Sector 07, Bhilai Civil Centre, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.26 18:18:24 +0530 2 1. Ashok Kumar Bharti S/o Thakur Ram Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jarvey, Post Bhansuli, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg07, M.B. 1372), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Sakshi Travels R/.O 14 Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg07, M.B. 1372), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Manager United India Insurance Company, Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House Police Station Chhawni, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg07, M.B. 1372), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1773 of 2019  Sakshi Travels Through - It's Owner Lesly David S/o Late Shri S. Ratnan Aged About 46 Years R/o Q. No. 7 / F, Street No. 1, Jone - 3, Sector - 11, Khursipar Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mahesh Kumar Tandan S/o Late Shri Krishna Murari Tandan Aged About 30 Years R/o - Q. No. 146 Parna, Khursipar, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Current Address - Q. No. 05-I, Street No. 33, Sector - 7, Civic Centre, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Krishna Murari Tandan Aged About 24 Years R/o - Q. No. 146 Parna, Khursipar, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Current Address - Q. No. 05-I, Street No. 33, Sector - 7, Civic Centre, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Ratna W/o Yashpal Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o - Q. No. 146 Parna, Khursipar, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Current Address - Q. No. 05-I, Street No. 33, Sector - 7, Civic Centre, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. Ashok Kumar Bharti S/o Thakur Ram Bharti Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jarvaiya, Post - Bhansuli, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. The Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, P.S. - Chhawani District Durg Chhattisgarh Limit - 04.12.2017 To 03.12.2018 Policy No. - 2703003117p112326933 (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg - 07/mb/1372, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1276 of 2019  Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Hem Lal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Padetola, Tahsil And Block Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o House No. 05 I, Street No. 33, Sector-07, Bhilai, Civic Centre, District- 3 Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ashok Kumar Bharti S/o Thakur Ram Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jarvay, Post Bhansuli, Tahsil Patan, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg-07, M.B.-1372), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Sakshi Travels, R/o 14 Tara Complex, G.E. Raod Power House, Bhilai, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg-07, M.B.-1372), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Tata Complex, G.E. Raod, Power House, P.S. Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Indica Vista No. Cg-07,m.B.-1372 ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1763 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate MAC No. 1276 of 2019 For Appellant/Injured : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarti, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate MAC No. 1287 of 2019 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarti, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate MAC No. 1773 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 09.2025 MAC No. 1763 of 2019 & MAC No. 1276 of 2019 1. In MAC No. 1763 of 2019, the appellant/owner has challenged the award 4 passed by the Second Additional Claims Tribunal to the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg passed in claim case No. 444/2018 dated 13.05.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 41,948/- on account of injury sustained by claimant/ respondent no. 1 with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 2. In MAC No. 1276 of 2019, the claimant/injured has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Facts in brief are that Laxmi Bai, Maina Bai, Neera Bai were going from Jamul to Sector-7, Bhilai in a Indica Vista car bearing registration No. C.G. 07 MB 1372 on the fateful date 13.03.2018 and when they reached near Karuna Hospital, Sector 7, Bhilai, its driver by driving vehicle rashly and negligently met with an accident. Laxmi Bai/claimant sustained injury over head and left leg and she was admitted at Government Hospital, Supela, Bhilai. She pleaded that on account of injury sustained by her, she became disabled to the extent of 80%, thus, she claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,02,000/-. 4. The owner as well as the Insurance company filed reply to said application. The Insurance Company took specific plea that premium with regard to comprehensive policy was not paid with the Insurance company and act only policy was issued against offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the claimant was an occupant of the car; therefore, the insurance company would be liable to make payment of compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 6. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate would argue that though there was act only policy, but the learned Tribunal ought to have fasten liability with the 5 Insurance company. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle alone, whereas, driver of the vehicle was also responsible as he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. He would pray to set-aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Mr. Barun Chakrabarti, Advocate appearing for the claimant/Laxmi Bai would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly fasten liability with the owner of the vehicle as there was act only policy against the vehicle. He would contend that the owner could not prove the fact risk of occupants of car was covered. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation though extent of disability was 80% vide Ex. P/16. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has not honored the medical bills submitted by the claimant and on conventional heads meager amount of compensation have been paid. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 8. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Insurance company would oppose the submissions made by respective Advocates. He would submit that as there was act only policy; therefore, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company and fastened liability with the owner. He would further submit that there was no need to fasten liability with the driver of the vehicle as the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with it. With regard to quantum of compensation, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Perusal of record would show that there was act only policy in favour of the appellant/owner of the vehicle and no premium was paid by the owner of 6 the vehicle to cover risk of its occupants, therefore, the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Tribunal; therefore, the learned Tribunal exercised its discretion in fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle; thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded in this regard. 11. Considering the above-stated facts, the appeal preferred by appellant/owner of the vehicle i.e. MAC No. 1763 of 2019 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. With regard to MAC No. 1278 of 2019, it appears that the claimant failed to examine the Doctor to prove the medical bills and disability certificate. The member of Medical Board was also not examined to prove the extent of disability 13. In the report Ex. P/16, it is specifically mentioned that it has not been issued to use in the Court proceedings, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly observed that the claimants would not get any benefit from said certificate. 14. The claimant further failed to prove her income before the learned Tribunal therefore, her income was assessed to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and also awarded sum of Rs. 4,000/- for special diet. The learned Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of earning for period of 5 months, and thus, total sum of Rs. 41,948 was awarded. 15. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed in claim case No. MAC No. 1278 of 2019, accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. 7 MAC No. 1287 of 2019 & MAC No. 1773 of 2019 16. In MAC No. 1773 of 2019, the owner of the vehicle/appellant has challenged the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the First Claims Tribunal, Durg passed in Claim Case No. 282 of 2018 dated 13.05.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,89,948/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Maina Bai. 17. In MAC No. 1287 of 2019, the claimants have filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation. 18. The facts have already mentioned in the opening para i.e. para 3. Children of the deceased Late Maina Bai filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,02,000/- inter alia on the ground that on the date of accident age of the deceased was 47 years and she was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,89,948/- 19. In MAC No. 1287 of 2019, Mr. Barun Chakrabarti, Advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. He would further submit that in the month of March, 2018, the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour in the State of Chhattisgarh was Rs. 7,930/-, whereas, the learned Tribunal has assessed notional income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect and has awarded compensation for loss of consortium to one of the claimants out of three. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for owner and Insurance company would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just 8 would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award and claimants failed to prove the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. They would further submit that as the claimant No. 3 is married daughter of the deceased and claimant No. 1 is major son of the deceased aged about 30 years; therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly not granted Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium to them. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. In MAC No. 1773 of 2019, Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate would argue that as there was act only policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have fasten liability with the Insurance company. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle alone, whereas, driver of the vehicle was also responsible as he was driving vehicle rashly and negligently. 22. In MAC No. 1773 of 2019, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Insurance company would oppose the submissions made by respective Advocates. He would submit that as there was act in policy; therefore, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company and fastened liability with the owner. He would further submit that there was no need to fasten liability with the driver of the vehicle as the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with it. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. Perusal of record would show that there was act only policy in favour of the appellant/owner of the vehicle, no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover risk of occupants of car, therefore, the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Tribunal; therefore, the learned 9 Tribunal exercised its discretion while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded in this regard. 25. Considering the above-stated facts, the appeal preferred by appellant/owner of the vehicle i.e. In MAC No. 1773 of 2019 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 26. With regard to enhancement of compensation (MAC No. 1287 of 2019), perusal of the record would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- whereas, the age of the deceased was 47 years and minimum wages payable to unskilled labour in the month of March, 2018 was Rs. 7,930/-, and thus, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income part of the deceased at lower side. Further, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospect which should be 25%. 27. The contention with regard to loss of consortium made by Mr. Chakrabarti, as the claimant No. 3 is a major married daughter and claimant No. 1 is son aged about 30 years and it has not pleaded and proved that they were dependent on the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly not granted compensation on this head to them. 28. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others and (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation is hereby revisited here-in-below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 10 1. Income Rs. 5,000 Rs. 7,930 x12 = Rs. 95,160/- 2. Future Prospect NIL (25%) = Rs. 23790/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 Rs. 1,666/- Rs. 3,333/- (-) 1/3 Rs. 39,650/- Rs. 79,300/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 5,19,948/- (x) 13 = Rs. 10,30,900/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 5,89,948/- Rs. 11,00,900/- 29. For the forgoing reasons, the MAC No. 1287 of 2019 is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,89,948/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,00,900/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,89,948/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,10,952/-. The owner of the vehicle is directed to make payment of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 30. Accordingly, MAC No. 1287 of 2019 is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant