1 2025:CGHC:16766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1994 of 2018 Smt. Shyam Bai W/o Charan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pewari, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Rajkumar @ Raju Nagvani S/o Late Bhola @ Holaram Aged About 31 Years R/o D.N.K. Colony, Shiv Mandir Road, Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- (Driver) 2. Brij Gopal Shel S/o Ratan Kumar Shel R/o Old Market Pakhanjur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 11, Mandi Complex Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpur, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate MAC No. 42 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Shop No.11, Mandi Complex, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.15 15:11:56 +0530 2 Versus 1. Smt. Shyambai W/o Charan Singh Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Shaymbai In The Impugned Award), R/o Village Pewari, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant) 2. Rajkumar @ Raju Nagvani S/o Late Bhola @ Holaram Aged About 31 Years R/o Dnk Colony, Shvi Mandir Road, Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- (Driver) 3. Brij Gopal Shel S/o Ratan Kumar Shel R/o Old Market, Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- (Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpur, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order On Board 09/04/2025 1 Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 21.08.2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, Chhattisgarh in MACC No. 13/2018, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2 MAC No.1994/2018 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and MAC No.42/2019 has been preferred by the Insurance Company for exonerating from the liability of payment of compensation. 3 In the case, the accident occurred on 22.02.2016 at about 8:00 pm 3 when driver Rajkumar driving the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. CG 19 T 0571 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of Dikesh Kumar Salam near Bansla cutting, PS Bhanupratappur, as a result of which Dikesh Kumar suffered grievous injuries and died. The claimant who is the mother of the deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,26,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, calculated the compensation as under: Heads Amount Monthly income 3,000 Annual income 3,000 x 12 = 36,000 Personal expenses (50% of the income) 18,000 Net income 18,000 Loss of dependency (applying multiplier of 18) 3,24,000 Loss of estate 10,000 Funeral Expenses 5,000 Total Rs.3,39,000 4 Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimant, against which MAC No.1994/2018 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement. 5 While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle jointly or severally liable for payment of compensation. However, the Tribunal fastened the first responsibility for payment of compensation on the Insurance Company. It is this fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which MAC No.42/2019 has been filed by the Insurance 4 Company seeking exoneration from the liability. MAC No.1994 of 2018 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 per month is much less than the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that point of time and therefore, it needs to be enhanced suitably. He next submits that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more if he had not met with the accident. He further submits that the amount given under other heads also needs to be enhanced suitably. 7 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9 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. 10 Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11 Though it was claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.9,000 per month from tuition work, no documentary evidence regarding his income has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 22.02.2016 and the minimum 5 wages of even an unskilled labour at that time was Rs.5860. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5860 per month as minimum wages instead of Rs.3000 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.70,320. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 40% of the income. After adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.28128, the amount comes to Rs.98,448. 12 At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 21 years of age and he was an unmarried young man. There is only one claimant who is the mother of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be half of the income, as rightly held by the Tribunal. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is being recomputed as below:- Sl. No. Particulars Calculation 1. Monthly income of the deceased 5860 2. Future prospects(40% of the income) 2344 3. Total 8204 4. Yearly income 8204 x 12 = 98448 5. Personal expenses (1/2 of the in- come) 49224 6. Net income 49224 7. Total loss of dependency (applying multiplier of 18) 49224 x 18 =886032 8. Funeral Expenses 15000 6 9. Loss of estate 15000 10. Love & affection 40000 Total compensation Rs.9,56,032 13 Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.9,56,032/- from which after deduction of Rs.3,39,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.6,17,032/-. MAC No.42 of 2019 14 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle as he had a licence of light motor vehicle nor did the owner have a valid permit for operating the offending vehicle as the permit had not been renewed. Since at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being operated in violation of the insurance conditions, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and prayed for exonerating the insurance company from its liability. 15 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the owner and the driver submits that on the date of accident, the driver had a valid driving licence. He further submits that though the permit could not be renewed before the date of accident, the amount for renewal had already been paid, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability is just and proper and requires no interference in the same. 16 Learned counsel appearing for the claimant prays for issuance of an order of “pay and recover” in case breach of policy condition is found. 7 17 So far as valid and effective driving licence is concerned, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle and the deceased did not have a licence to drive a commercial vehicle as he had an LMV licence. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663, the said contention of the Insurance Company would not be sustainable and the said ground stands answered in negative. 18 As regards valid permit, the owner Brij Gopal Shel himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the permit of the offending vehicle had expired on 19.02.2016 and for its renewal he had made online payment on 14.02.2016 but it could not be renewed till the date of accident. The renewal of permit was issued only on 03.03.2016. The accident occurred on 22.02.2016. As such, on the date of accident, there was no valid permit of the offending vehicle and it was being operated in violation of the insurance policy condition. Therefore, the insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 19 As regards the prayer of the claimant for an order of “pay and recover”, admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company but due to breach of policy condition the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability. However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to pass an order of pay and recover. 8 20 Accordingly, it is directed that the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle shall first pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and then recover the same jointly or severally from the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 21 In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.6,17,032/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall 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 the conditions shall remain intact. 22 The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai