-1- 2025:CGHC:33567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2015 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Office Address- G.E. Road Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Policy No. 192502/31/2018/21999 Validity Period 11.01.2018 To 10.01.2019 (Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G. -24-K-7032) --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Devoki Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 40 Years 2 - Kuber Singh S/o Late Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 15 Years 3 - Ku. Akanksha D/o. Late Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 13 Years 4 - Smt. Chaiti Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Baratu Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years No.2 & 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Devki Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Dharam Singh Sahu. All R/o Village Ward No. 1, Bhardakala, Post Bhardakala, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5 - Shyam Kumar S/o Nohar Singh Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ward No. 9, Bijabhatha, Post Bhardakala, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh 491225 (Driver-Cum-Registered Owner Of Offending Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G.- 24-K-7032) (Non-Applicant No. 1) --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.31 10:34:22 +0530 -2- _______________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 4 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ MAC No. 1861 of 2019 1 - Smt. Devki Bai Sahu W/o Late Shri Dharam Singh Sahu, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Kuber Singh S/o Late Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 15 Years 3 - Ku. Akansha D/o Late Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 13 Years 4 - Smt. Chaiti Bai Sahu W/o Late Baratu Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minor through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Devki Bai Sahu W/o Late Shri Dharam Singh Sahu, All R/o Ward No 01 Bhardakala, Post - Bhardakala, Tahsil - Gunderdehi District - Balod Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Shyam Kumar S/o Nohar Singh Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ward No. 9, Beejabhata, Post- Bhardakala, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner) 2 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office G.E. Road, Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), --- Respondent(s) _______________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate -3- For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 16/07/2025 1. MAC No.2015 of 2019 is filed by appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal and MAC No.1861 of 2019 is filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. As both the appeals arise out of same award dated 21st August 2019 passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.122 of 2019, both the appeals are heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimant in MAC No.1861 of 2019 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 09.12.2018 at about 9:30 pm, Dharam Singh Sahu after attending his duties was returning to his village Bhardakala on his motorcycle No CG-08/AB 9127 carefully. When he reached near electricity office, non-applicant No.1 driving his motorcycle No. CG 24-K 7032 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle driven by Dharam Singh Sahu, caused an accident, in which Dharm Singh Sahu suffered grievous injury. He was taken to hospital where during course of his treatment he died. Deceased Dharam Singh Sahu -4- before the accident was a healthy man of 44 years and he was earning Rs.12000/- per month by working as a conductor in Balazi Bus Travellers and from this income he was maintaining his family. Due to untimely death of Dharam Singh Sahu, applicants /claimants are facing financial crisis. They claimed for total compensation of Rs.33,54,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicant No. 1 by filing his written statement resisted the claim and pleaded that applicants have filed claim case on the basis of false facts. Accident was not caused by him but the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by deceased himself. If the Claims Tribunal considers the claimants to be entitled to receive compensation amount, insurance company will be liable to pay amount of compensation, if any, as on the date of accident, motorcycle No CG -24-K-7032 was insured with non-applicant No.2. 4. Non-applicant No.2/insurance company in its written statement also denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1, accident occurred due to deceased driving the vehicle in intoxicated condition, fell from his own motorcycle under the influence of liquor. Date of accident is 09.12.2018 whereas FIR of the incident was registered on 07.01.2019 with a delay of 29 days . A person cannot be held responsible for an accident merely because a criminal case has been registered. Principle of contributory negligence is attracted in the case. If on the date of accident, driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company is not responsible to pay amount of compensation. -5- 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Dharam Singh Sahu suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.8450/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,34,616/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that motorcycle bearing No.CG 24 K 7032 driven and owned by non-applicant No.1 is involved in accident overlooking the fact that report of accident was lodged after about one month on 07.01.2019. She next contended that number of vehicle owned by non-applicant No.1 is not mentioned either in morgue intimation/FIR and there is no connecting piece of evidence to establish involvement of motorcycle No.CG 24 K 7032 in the accident. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Non-applicant No.1/driver (respondent No.5 in MAC No.2015/19) supports the submission of learned counsel for the insurance company and would submit that he was not involved in any manner in the accident nor his motorcycle. The police seized motorcycle of non-applicant No.1 only on 28.01.2019. Claimants have not examined any eyewitnesses to the accident to prove involvement of the vehicle owned by non-applicant No.1. 8. Learned counsel for claimants (appellants in MAC No.1861/19) would support the impugned award and would submit that immediately after -6- accident, FIR was lodged though against unknown vehicle. He submits that FIR was registered based on morgue intimation by the police official who is the officer in-charge of police station Arjunda District –Balod. During course of investigation, investigating agency collected material including details of offending vehicle and accordingly charge sheet has been filed against non- applicant No.1. His vehicle was also seized vide seizure memo ExP-3. He further submit that claimants have also filed appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not adding compensation under the head future prospects. He submits that looking to age of the deceased to be 45 years, there should be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects of deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient compensation amount under other conventional heads. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company of involvement of vehicle i.e. CG 24-K/7032 in the accident is concerned, perusal of the record would show that date of accident is 09.12.2018. After the accident, Dharam Singh Sahu was taken to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon for treatment, however, during course of his treatment he died on 09.12.2018. On the basis of morgue intimation given by Constable of Police Chowki District Hospital, Rajnadgaon morgue was registered on the same date at 22:15 hrs. at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon mentioning that Dharam Sahu died in a road accident. As the place of accident fell under the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Arjunda, morgue report was sent to Police Station Arjunda. -7- After receipt of morgue intimation at Police Station Arjunda, investigation was done and FIR was registered by the Police Station – Arjunda on 07.01.2019. 11. To support their claim application, claimants examined Devki Bai Sahu as AW1, wife of the deceased, Dinesh Kumar Jhanwar as AW2, employer of deceased and Ravikant Sahu as AW3. Ravikant Sahu in his evidence deposed that on the date of accident, when Dharma Singh Sahu was returning to his village Bhardakala on his motorcycle, at that time driver of motorcycle No.CG-24-K-7032 coming from behind near electricity office dashed motorcycle driven by Dharm Singh Sahu due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died. He stated that FIR was registered in police station Arjunda and his statement was taken by the police officials 12. In support of his defence, Shyam Kumar Sahu (non-applicant No.1) /driver of the offending vehicle was examined as NAW1. In his cross- examination he admitted that he is the registered owner of motorcycle CG- 24-K-7032. On the date of accident he was driving the said motorcycle. He admitted that a report has been lodged against him in Arjunda Police Station for causing an accident to Dharam Sahu, criminal case of which was going on in the concerned Court and no complaint has been made by him regarding false report lodged against him. He admitted that after the accident, injured was taken to District Hospital Rajnandgaon where during course of his treatment he died. In the case at hand, information of death was given by the hospital to Station In-charge of Basantpur, Rajnandgaon on the same day, morgue intimation of which registered under No. No.0/18 and dead body was sent for postmortem on 10.12.2018. Since the place of accident was Arjunda Police Station, report of the incident was received by -8- Arjunda Police Station on 07.01.2019 for registering FIR. In such a situation it cannot be said that the contents of documents have not been proved by applicants/claimants through evidence and the statement of applicant’s witness and documents produced in claim case confirm the accident which could not be refuted by non-applicants in cross-examination nor has any documentary evidence been produced in refutation of the said fact. Therefore, it is proved that on 09.12.2018 at about 9:30 pm Dharam Singh Sahu after attending his duty was going from Village Arjunda to his home in Village- Bhardakala on his motorcycle No. CG 07-AB 9127. When he reached near electricity office, non-applicant No.1 driving his motorcycle No CG-24/K 7032 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle driven by Dharam Sahu from behind and caused an accident in which Dharam Singh Sahu died. There was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the offending vehicle concerned in the matter and launch prosecution against the driver. If the insurance company had suspected collusion, they would have taken steps to file appropriate complaints including moving the higher police authorities or the Court to order an investigation into the alleged wrongful involvement of the vehicle. It was not the case of the insurance company that the police officer also colluded. 13. There is no dispute with respect to law that the standard of proof in motor accident cases is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of probabilities means 'more probable and rational view of the case' not necessarily as certain as the pleadings should be. Burden to prove the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle is not heavy upon the claimants. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court thus in Geeta Dubey and Ors. Vs. United -9- India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779 while dealing with the identical issue, reiterating its earlier decision in the case of Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed thus: “20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as follows: “14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both -10- the parties. 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose.” 15. For the foregoing discussions and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant- insurance company that only on the basis of police report with regard to occurring of alleged accident it cannot be believed that the said accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by non-applicant No.1. The same is accordingly repelled. No other good ground is raised by learned counsel for appellant-insurance company to support the appeal. Appeal filed by appellant-Insurance company being sans merit is liable to be dismissed. 16. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1861 of 2019 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 has clearly held that where the deceased was not in permanent employment and aged between 40 to 50 years, there shall be addition of 25% to assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (supra) has specified other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expense and loss of consortium and also quantified amount as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In case of of Magma General Insurance Co. -11- Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130., Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained types of consortium i.e. 'loss of spousal consortium', 'loss of parental consortium' and loss of 'filial consortium''. In the case at hand, claimant No. 1 being wife, claimant No. 2 & 3 being children and claimant No.4 being mother of deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of spousal consortium, loss of ‘parental consortium’ and 'loss of filial consortium’ reflectivity. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to claimants No. 1 to 4 has to be enhanced by 10% and it will be Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x 4) respectively. 19. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 8450 x 12 = 101400 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (101400 x 25% =25350) 101400+ 25350 = 1,26,750 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (1,26,750x 1/4= 31687) 1,26750 - 31687 =95063/- (D) Multiplier of 14 : Rs. 13,30,882 -12- 95063x 14= 13,30,882 2. Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10 % =16500) : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate (15000 x 10 % =16500) : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant No.1 (wife) (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to claimants No. 2 & 3 (children) of 44,000/- each (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (44,000 x 2 =88,000) (+) Rs. 88,000 6. Loss of filial consortium to claimants No. 4 (mother) (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (+) Rs. 44,000 Total compensation Rs. 15,39,882 20. Now respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,39,882/- instead of Rs.11,34,616/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 21. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 22. In the result, MAC No. 2015 of 2019 filed by appellant -Insurance -13- Company is dismissed and MAC No.1861 of 2019 filed by appellants/claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/ Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen