1 2025:CGHC:59589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 802 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Its Asstt. Manager, T. P. Hub Divisional Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Madhuri Mannewar W/o Late Shri Damodar Prasad, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Labed, P. S. Urga, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gulshan Kumar, Late Shri Damodar Prasad, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Labed, P. S. Urga, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Rajeshwari Mannewar, W/o Late Shri Damodar Prasad W/o Rajesh Kumar Maitri, At Dhaskamuda, P. S. And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gajendra @ Jogendra, W/o Munuram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandrapur, P. S. Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.(Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Meena Devi, W/o Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Aged About 57 Years RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Prakash Food Industries, Chandrapur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.(Owner)., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Benoon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate. For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate & Mr. Suman Kesary, Advocate. . For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 11.01.2018 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 45/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,44,130/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 represented by Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 04.05.2009 at about 11:30 a.m., the driver of the motor vehicle truck bearing No. CG-13-ZC-0407, while allegedly driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the deceased Damodar at Village Putidih near Panpasar Tab on the Dabhra–Chandrapur Road, resulting in his 3 death; that, thereafter, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,54,888/-; that, upon notice, the owner-cum- driver filed his Written Statement denying liability and alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, while also contending that the vehicle was duly insured and thus the liability, if any, was that of the Insurance Company; that the appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement contesting the claim on various grounds, including breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being plied without a valid fitness certificate, permit, and effective driving licence, and consequently sought exoneration; and that, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 11.01.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 45/2016, assessed compensation at Rs. 13,44,130/- with interest @ 6% per annum, holding the appellant liable to pay the amount jointly and severally to the claimants within one month. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the impugned award is wholly contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law, and that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse, thereby rendering the award liable to be set aside. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the owner and driver of the insured vehicle did not produce the requisite permit and fitness certificate despite a 4 specific application being made for their production, and yet, vide order dated 27.10.2017. The Tribunal illegally rejected the appellant’s application by wrongly holding that the burden to prove breach of policy conditions rested solely on the insurer. Learned counsel further argues that the Tribunal overlooked the law laid down in Pappu and Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208, which clearly holds that mere production of a valid insurance certificate is insufficient to fasten liability upon the insurer unless the foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner. In the present case, the owner and driver failed to discharge this obligation, and therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them, leading to the conclusion that the insurer had duly established the alleged breach. It is further contended that the vehicle, being a goods vehicle, could not have been lawfully plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate, and the Tribunal ought to have held that the insured had committed a clear breach of policy conditions and accordingly exonerated the appellant from liability to pay compensation. The appellant also reserves its right to raise additional grounds at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,44,130/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side 5 and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 6. None for respondents No. 4 & 5 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions advanced by both parties, and the material placed on record, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which carefully appreciated the evidence and correctly assessed the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant has failed to substantiate its plea of breach of policy conditions, particularly when the owner and driver —upon whom the initial burden lay to produce the permit and fitness certificate—were duly afforded opportunity, and the Tribunal rightly drew conclusions on the basis of available evidence. The reliance placed on Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba is misplaced in the facts of the present case, as the Tribunal has duly considered the foundational aspects governing liability. Likewise, the plea raised by the claimants seeking enhancement also does not merit acceptance at the appellate stage, as the compensation awarded is just, reasonable, and in accordance with settled principles governing the assessment of compensation. 9. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned 6 award dated 11.01.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 45/2016, the appeal stands dismissed. Cross Appeal/Objection 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,438/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,13,256/- per annum. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 56,628/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,69,884/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 84,942/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 84,942/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 39 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 12,74,130/-. 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. 13,44,130/- in favour of the wife and son of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,44,130/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He 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. 7 12. 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. 13. None for respondent Nos. 4 & i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,438/- per month. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 9,438/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,13,256/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 56,628/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,69,884/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 39 years 8 and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 56,628/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,13,256/-. 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 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 16,98,840/-. The claimants 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 are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 18,78,840/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 16,98,840/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every Rs. 18,000/- 9 three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 18,78,840/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 18,78,840/-. After deducting Rs. 13,44,130/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 5,34,710/-. 20. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,34,710/- 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 the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat