1 / 7 2025:CGHC:24965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2196 of 2019 • The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 2) Behind Jeevan Beema Office, Pandari Raipur, Thana Pandari, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer of Motorcycle No. C.G. 04DG/2314) --- Appellant/Non-applicant No.2 versus 1. Jaamin Verma W/o Late Bholaram Verma, Aged About 38 Years 2. Ishwar, S/o Late Bholaram Verma, Aged About 20 Years 3. Vinod, S/o Late Bholaram Verma Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Jaamin Bai Verma 4. Dukalhin, W/o Rambagas Verma Aged About 75 Years All are R/o Permanent Address Village Manohra, Po. Off.- Hahband, Thana Simga, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) Present Resident - Rawanbhatha, Thana Khamtarai District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----Claimants 5. Chudamadi, S/o Gajadhar Verma Resident Village Sankri (Bhaisa) Via Hathband, Thana Simga, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) (Driver And Owner of Motorcycle No. C.G.04 D.G.-2314) -----Non-applicant No. 1 --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 17/06/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 08.08.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Tribunal to Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 427/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants therein/ claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 33,94,633/- as compensation in a motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.01.2018 at about 07:00 PM, on the main road in front of Bitkuli mine village under police station Suhela, district Balodabazar, Respondent No. 5/ non-applicant no. 1 while driving his motorcycle no. CG-04 DG 2314 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle no. CG-04 CK 8751 of one Bholaram Verma, as a result of which Bholaram Verma received grievous injuries. He was taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur wherein he was admitted in unconscious condition, and during course of treatment he died on 13.01 2018. Information about the accident was given to Suhela Police Station, Balodabazar, based on which Crime No. 53/2018 was registered for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants who are widow, children and widow mother of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 60,30,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy man of 47 years. He was working in Ambuja Cement Factory and earning ₹ 27,000 per month to support himself and his family. 4. Respondent No. 5/ Non-applicant No. 1 -owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted his reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of the accident, non- applicant No. 1 was possessed with a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with 3 / 7 appellant/non-applicant No.2. Thus, the appellant-non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident the deceased was driving his motorcycle in violation of provision under Section 129 of the Act of 1988 as he was not wearing a helmet. In the case, driver, registered owner and insurer of the motorcycle number CG 04 CK 8751 have not been made parties. They were necessary parties. It is further pleaded that the principle of contributory negligence applies to the case. On the date of the incident, non-applicant no. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Thus, non-applicant No.2- insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Bholaram Verma died because of grievous injuries suffered in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) by non-applicant 1/ Respondent No. 5. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 33,94,633/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal raising sole ground that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased on higher side. He contended that in the claim application though there is pleading that the deceased was working with Ambuja Cement Factory, however, no witnesses have been examined nor has placed any document(s) to show that the deceased was being paid any salary by the said employer. He contended 4 / 7 that in absence of pleadings, oral evidence brought on record by the claimants to prove nature of occupation and the wages/ salary paid to him, pleading and oral evidence of getting salary of ₹ 27,000 per month, is not admissible. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by Lrs. vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors. reported in 2024 (3) S.C.R. 46. 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and would further submit that the claimants are poor villagers and they have filed the claim application based on the place of working of deceased. He contended that in the evidence it has come that the deceased was working under the Alert Service Bureau company, it is dealing in providing security service and also supplying labourers. To support plea of nature of occupation of working in the Ambuja Cement Factory engaged by the service provider and the engagement of deceased as Attender with Ambuja Cement Factory has been proved by examining witness, AW-3, Santosh Verma, Supervisor of Alert Service Bureau. He also contended that the amount/ salary which was being paid by the Alert Services is being transferred in his account and copy of passbook of deceased is also placed in record as an evidence as Ext. C-1. Claims Tribunal taking average of the salary received by the deceased in his account assessed the monthly income which cannot be said to be erroneous. He next contended that the claimants have filed a cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/4 erroneously, instead of 1/5. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 5 / 7 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company with regard to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, perusal of application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 would show that the claimants are widow, two children and one old aged widow mother of the deceased. They have pleaded that the deceased was working in Ambuja Cement Factory and earning ₹ 27,000/- per month. In the pleadings, there is only mentioned that the deceased was working with Ambuja Cement Factory, in support of income of deceased, they have examined one Santosh Verma as AW-3 to prove the income of deceased. He has proved the document Ext. P-13, which is a certificate issued by Proprietor namely R. David for Alert Service Bureau. The signature has been identified by the said witness to be of contractor R. David. In the said document it is mentioned that Supervisor Santosh Kumar Verma was authorized by him to appear before the court at Raipur. Ext. P-14 is the Form-XIV under Rule 76 of the Contract Labour (R. & A) Central Rules, 1971, wherein the daily wages of Bhola Ram Verma, Attender, is mentioned as ₹ 699.23/-. Claimants have also filed Ext. P-16 & 17, letter to the Branch Manager, IDBI Bank in letter head of Alert Service Bureau mentioning payment of 75 employees in which also name of deceased, Bholaram Verma, is forming part. Ext. P-16 is the document of payment credit for the month of December 2017 and Ext. P-17 is for the month of January 2018 and in both the documents the amount to be paid is also mentioned clearly for all 75 persons named therein. In the said list, Ext. P-16 the amount to be paid to Bholaram Verma is mentioned as ₹ 22,304/- and Ext. P-17 mentions that amount of ₹ 11,087/-. Further employer Alert Service Bureau has also placed on record a certificate issued on 09.08.2018 as Ext. P-18 mentioning that there is deduction of PF @ 12% and total wages as ₹ 3,88,108/- including the bonus, medical claim and yearly LTC allowance. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record by the claimants have assessed the average 6 / 7 income of deceased as ₹ 2,72,791/- on yearly basis considering the credit of amount in each of the month of the year 2017 which, in the opinion of this court, is based on appreciation of documentary evidence, including the passbook of account in which the amount earned by the deceased has been credited. In view of documentary and oral evidence, assessment of income cannot be said to be erroneous. No other ground has been raised by the counsel for appellant. 11. Decision relied upon by the counsel for appellant in the case of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by Lrs.(supra) is distinguishable on facts. 12. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by appellant-insurance company, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Sofar as the ground raised in the cross appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants with regard to wrong application of deduction of 1/4 instead of 1/5 is concerned, in the case at hand there are only four claimants. The law with regard to application of deduction is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, in which it has been held that where the claimants are 4 to 6 there shall be application of deduction of 1/4. In view of the above facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, application of deduction of 1/4 applied by the Claims Tribunal is correct which does not call for any interference. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that in the cross appeal he has also taken ground of addition of 25% only of the assessed income towards future prospects instead of 40%. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel, I have perused the documents available on record to ascertain the age of deceased. As per the post mortem report, age of deceased is mentioned as 47 years, from which it is apparent that the deceased on the date of accident was more than 40 years and below 50 years. Addition of percentage of income towards future prospects has been 7 / 7 well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in which it is held that there shall be addition of 40% when deceased is below 40 years of age and the addition of 25% will be for the person aged between 40-50 years. As the deceased was above 40 years and below 50 year of age, application of addition of 25% of the assessed income by the Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), and it does not call for any interference. 15. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross appeal filed by Respondents No. 1 to 4, accordingly both appeals, ie., appeal filed by the Insurance Company and cross appeal filed by the respondents-claimants being sans merit are dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn