1 2025:CGHC:48653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1861 of 2018 1 - I C I C I Lombard Gereral Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Chandan Joshi W/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kamini D/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, Aged About 13 Years Being Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandan Joshi W/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Rahul Joshi S/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, Aged About 10 Years Being Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandan Joshi W/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lokesh Joshi S/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, Aged About 7 Years Being Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chandan Joshi W/o Late Ganeshdas Joshi, R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shankar Joshi S/o Sudharu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Panchbai W/o Shankar Joshi Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sirvabandha, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh..............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dashrath Nourange S/o Ishwarlal Nourange, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mohlai, P.O. Balsamund, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh...............Owner-Cum-Driver, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on 3 behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 7.8.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 64/2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 6 represented by Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1 to 6, who are the claimants (widow, minor children, father, and mother of the deceased Ganesh Das Joshi), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pleading inter alia that on 20/01/2017, respondent No. 1, the owner-cum-driver, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration number C.G.07 AK 3985, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, Ganesh Das Joshi, bearing registration number CG.25/4873. As a result of the 4 accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries that led to his death. It was further stated that the deceased was approximately 35 years old, worked as a mason, and earned Rs. 500 per day, and under various heads, the claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/-. Respondent No. 7, the owner- cum-driver, filed a written statement alleging that a false report had been lodged and that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent act of the deceased, who had a valid driving license, and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company. The appellant company also filed a written statement stating that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that offenses were registered against both the deceased and respondent No. 1, and that the deceased did not have a valid driving license; they further contended that the owner and insurer of the other vehicle should have been a necessary party. The learned Claims Tribunal, on 24/03/2018, allowed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and by its impugned award dated 07/08/2018, partly allowed the claim petition under Section 166, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1, that no breach of the insurance policy was established, and that the claimants were 5 entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,15,000/- jointly and severally from the owner and the insurance company. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is vitiated by grave legal errors warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. Firstly, the Tribunal egregiously erred in holding that the respondent No. 1 was in possession of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, a finding which is factually and legally untenable. Further, the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 7,000/- is manifestly perverse and unsupported by credible evidence on record, thereby wrongfully fastened an undue liability upon the insurance company. Secondly, the FIR initially lodged against the deceased himself, followed by a claw-back report, and the subsequent lodging of a belated FIR after a delay of 82 days solely to obtain compensation, raises serious questions regarding the bona fides of the claim and undermines the very foundation of the respondent’s case. Thirdly, the oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, a fact which the Tribunal overlooked, leading to an erroneous conclusion in issues No. 1 and 3. Fourthly, the Tribunal committed grave illegality in deciding issue No. 4 against the insurance company without appreciating 6 that the breach of the insurance policy terms entitled the insurer to be exonerated from liability. Lastly, the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of respondent No. 1, thereby rendering the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act non-maintainable. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned award dated 07/08/2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,15,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 6. None for respondent No. 7 i.e. owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 7 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering that although the appellant, being the insurance company, has raised multiple grounds in support of their appeal, a thorough examination of the case record reveals that these grounds lack substantial evidence. Moreover, the appellant has failed to produce the investigator’s report, which is a crucial piece of documentation necessary to substantiate their claims. In light of the absence of sufficient proof and the non- filing of the investigator’s report, the appeal presented by the appellant insurance company is without merit and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Cross Objection/Appeal 11. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 21,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 63,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 are the 8 wife, children and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,45,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,15,000/- in favour of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,15,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 13. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for appellant that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 9 14. None for respondent No. 7 i.e. owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. 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. 17. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 33,600/-, 10 the annual income comes to Rs. 1,17,600/-. 19. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 are the wife, children and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 29,400/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 88,200/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 14,11,200/-. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 who are the wife, children and parents 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). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X6+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would become entitled for 11 total compensation of Rs. 17,35,200/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 14,11,200/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). Rs. 2,88,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 17,35,200/- 20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.17,35,200/-. After deducting Rs. 10,15,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,20,200/-. 21. In the result, cross-objection/appeal filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 stands allowed. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,20,200/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of 12 the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat