1 2025:CGHC:23422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 11.03.2025 Judgment delivered on: 12.06.2025 MAC No. 1769 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sarla Bhardwaj, W/o Late Sanjay Bhardwaj, Aged About 41 Years, 2 - Sagar Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sanjay Bhardwaj, Aged About 20 Years, 3 - Kumari Ishita Bhardwaj, D/o Late Sanjay Bhardwaj, Aged About 17 Years, 4 - Motiram Bhardwaj, S/o Hetram Bhardwaj, Aged About 71 Years, Appellant No. 3 is minor through legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sarla Bhardwaj (Appellant No.1). All R/o House No. 648 Padamnabhpur Ward No. 46 Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh Pin- 491001............(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Vijay Sahu, S/o Ghasiram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Near House of Bhagwati Sahu Banjaripara Utai Ward No. 10 Thana- Utai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Crain No. C.G.07/n.A./7866).........(Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anujram Sahu, S/o Shri Jaganuram Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, Address House No. 182, Ward No. 64 Jalaram Chouk Padepara Nevai Bhatha Utai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh Pin - 491007...........(Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Crain No. C.G.07/n.A./7866). 2 3 - Branch Manager, the United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office Paras Complex, Behind of State Bank of India Gurudwara Station Road District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....Policy No. 27038117P107058164......... (Insurer of The Offending Vehicle Crain No. C.G.07/N.A./7866)............ (Period- 31/08/2017 To 30/08/2018)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 20.06.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 249/2018 awarding a compensation of Rs.57,16,949/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 2. As per claim petition filed under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the date of accident i.e. on 17.01.2018, deceased Sanjay Bhardwaj was going to drop his daughter Kumari Ishita to Sector 10 for tuition as usual on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 B.C. 9002. At about 04.00 P.M., when he reached Jail Road, at the same time, the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 07 NA 7866, while driving the said vehicle fast and carelessly, hit the deceased Sanjay Bhardwaj and caused an accident, 3 as a result of which, he suffered severe injuries on his head and other parts of the body and due to which, he died on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a 46-year-old healthy, educated person who was a lecturer in the education department and used to earn Rs. 41,551/- and was about to be promoted from lecturer to the post of principal in the near future. With regard to aforesaid accident, FIR bearing Crime No. 44/2018 was registered at Police Station- Durg Padmanagpur Outpost District- Durg for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC against the driver Vijay Sahu, which is pending. Interim compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- under 140 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act may be given to the complainants. Since the cause of action is within the jurisdiction of the Court and is within the time limit, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the application. This is the first application regarding compensation, apart from this, no other application has been submitted in any other Tribunal nor is it pending. Therefore, it is requested that the appellants may be given a total compensation of Rs. 01,13,00,000/- (one crore thirteen lakh rupees) and an interim compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- along with 12% interest per annum may also be given from the date of submission of application till the date of payment and whatever other relief the Court may deem fit. 3. In their reply, non-applicants No. 1 and 2, denying the other facts of the application of the applicants, stated that the compensation amount demanded by the applicants/appellants has been overestimated. The deceased did not suffer serious injuries and did not die in the above accident. The deceased was not 46 years old and did not earn a 4 monthly income of Rs. 41,551/- and he could not have been promoted from lecturer to the post of Principal. A false case has been registered by the police of Police Station Padmanabhpur against non-applicant No.1. There is no negligence of non-applicant No.1 in the above accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident and it was his negligence. Further, it has been stated that on the date of accident i.e. on 17.01.2018, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07 NA. 7866 was insured with United Insurance Company Limited, Durg/Non-applicant No. 3 and the policy number was 2703813117 P 107058164 and the validity of the said police was from 31.06.2017 to 30.08.2018. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 had a valid license to drive the said vehicle, in such a situation, non- applicant No. 3 may be held responsible for the said compensation. Therefore, the application submitted by the applicants/appellants may be dismissed. 4. Non-applicant No. 3 filed reply stating that the applicants/complainants should themselves certify the age of the deceased as 46 years by submitting his birth documents or mark sheet. The deceased was not working as a Shiksha Karmi Class-1 nor did he earn an annual income amounting to Rs.04,98,612/-. The applicants/appellants have overestimated the compensation. The applicants/appellants should themselves certify the annual income of the deceased by submitting documents and income tax returns. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 did not inform the non-applicant No.3 about the accident. The applicants/appellants should themselves certify the negligence and involvement of non-applicant No. 1 in the accident and also certify their relationship with the deceased. There was no negligence and 5 involvement of the driver in this accident. The deceased was not a 46year-old person and was not a teacher either, neither was he earning Rs. 41,551/- per month, nor was he going to be promoted to the post of Principal. Just because a criminal case is registered against someone, it cannot be held guilty for the accident. The insurance company has no responsibility for interim compensation, hence, the applicants/appellants are not entitled to get interim compensation amount. The deceased was driving the Avenger motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 07 BC 9002 himself at the time of the accident. If there was negligence on the part of non-applicant No. 1 also, then in such a situation, considering the deceased equally responsible for the accident under negligence, it would be appropriate to pass an order for the applicants/appellants to bear 50% of the total loss amount themselves. The registered owner or insurance company of the vehicle being driven by the deceased which is a necessary party, have not been made a party. In such a situation, the application submitted by the applicants/appellants may be rejected in the absence of a necessary party. On the date of the accident, the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a license to drive the insured vehicle. In case of violation of the insurance policy, the insurance company will not be responsible for compensation. Therefore, it is prayed that the application of the applicants/appellants may be dismissed with costs. 5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 6 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned claims Tribunal runs contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The learned claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in disbelieving the statements of witnesses of claimants adduced in support of the pleading. The learned claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in holding that the deceased used to earn Rs.42,936/-per month whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased at Rs.53,506/-per month. The learned claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in calculating the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses as there were total four dependents upon the deceased and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, therefore it ought to have been 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses. The learned claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in applying multiplier 13 in place of 14, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 14 in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra). He further submits that the learned claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of filial consortium and loss of estate, therefore, the compensation award deserves to be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal 7 considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1 and as a result of which, deceased died on the spot and held that the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation. 10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 11. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.57,16,949/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. From the pleadings of the respective parties and the overall evidence on record, it is clear that the accident occurred on 17.01.2018 with the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 and was being driven by respondent No.1. Evidence further goes to show that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. 13. As regards the income of the deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.42,936/- per month and filed annual salary statement (Ex.P/32) in this regard. Document (Ex.P/31C) would show that the deceased was posted as lecturer in the Municipal Corporation, Durg at the time of accident. Hence, learned Tribunal 8 assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 42,936/- which is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. Looking to the number of dependency that is 4 in the instant case, the Tribunal was not justified in making 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and it should have been 1/4th. Tribunal made deduction of Rs. 9,349/- towards income tax which cannot be faulted with. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and nature of his job, the Tribunal rightly awarded future prospect @ 30%. however, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium & love and affection is not in accordance with law. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 42,936/- 02. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs. 42,936-Rs. 10,734) Rs. 32,202/- 03. Annual income of the deceased (Rs. 32,202 x 12) Rs. 3,86,424/- 04. Income Tax deduction (Rs. 3,86,424 - 9349) Rs. 3,77,075/- 05. Multiplier of 13 be applied Rs. 49,01,975/- 06. 30% of (5) above to be added towards future prospects. (Rs. 14,70,593+ Rs.49,01,975) Rs.63,72,568/- 07. Towards loss of spousal Rs. 1,00,000/- 9 consortium to claimant No.1 08. Towards loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos. 2 & 3 each @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 09. Towards loss of filial consortium to claimant No. 5 Rs. 40,000/- 10 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 11. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 66,22,568/- 14. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 57,16,949/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.9,05,619/- (Rupees nine lacs five thousand six hundred nineteen) with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV