1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1223 of 2018 Reserved on 04/11/2025 Delivered on 21/11/2025 1 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office, Divisional Manager Kutcheri Road, Raipur, Chhattisgahr., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meheshwari Kaiwart W/o Late Dr. Narayan Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Employee Colony, Near Water Tank, Simga, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Damni Kaiwart Minor D/o Dr. Narayan Prasad Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Maheshwari Kaiwart, R/o Employee Colony, Near Water Tank, Singa District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nitesh Kaiwart S/o Late Dr. Narayan Prasad Aged About 23 Years R/o Employee Colony, Near Water Tank, Singa District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pavitra Kaiwart S/o Late Dr. Narayan Prasad Aged About 21 Years R/o Employee Colony, Near Water Tank, Singa District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Ghurendra Yadav S/o Parshuram Aged About 24 Years R/o Through Gagan Bedi, House No. 1866, Gali No. 2, Ramdev Timbar, Near Shiv Mandir, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh......(Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Gaganbedi S/o Jogindra Pal Bedi Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 1866, Gali No. 2, Ramdev Timbar, Near Shiv Mandir, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 26.03.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.161/2015 whereby a compensation of Rs.43,48,959/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 27.02.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., the deceased Narayan was riding his motorcycle when the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JD- 9663, driven by Respondent No. 5, Ghurendra, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and violently dashed into the motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of Narayan. It is the case of the appellant–Insurance Company that at the time of the accident Respondent No. 5 was holding only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence 3 (Exhibit D-1) and had no valid licence to drive a transport vehicle; however, the Claims Tribunal, ignoring this material fact, erroneously relied on another document, Exhibit D-6, and fastened liability upon the appellant. The appellant contends that Exhibit D-6 was procured fraudulently by Respondent No. 6, the owner of the vehicle, after the accident, as the said document shows it was issued on 24.04.2015— nearly two months after the accident dated 27.02.2015. Significant discrepancies exist between Exhibits D-1 and D-6, including differences in address, photograph, and even surname, clearly demonstrating that Exhibit D-6 does not pertain to Respondent No. 5. As per Sections 6(3) and 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any additional vehicle category should have been endorsed on the existing licence, but instead a completely separate licence was irregularly issued. Moreover, Respondent No. 6 admitted in paragraph 9 of his testimony before the Tribunal that he had obtained Exhibit D-6 through a relative of the driver, thereby showing that Respondent No. 5 had no knowledge of such licence. Further, the Tribunal’s record reveals that notice was never served on Respondent No. 5 at the address mentioned in either licence, Exhibit D-1 was seized by police as per seizure memo Exhibit P-5, and the two licences were issued by different RTOs, Exhibit D-1 by RTO Chhapra (Bihar) and Exhibit D-6 by RTO Jagdalpur. Notably, Respondent No. 5 neither referred to Exhibit D-6 in his pleadings nor examined himself as a witness despite being represented by counsel, and Exhibit D-1 itself contains no date of birth. The appellant further submits that Respondents 3 and 4, being major legal heirs of the deceased, are not 4 dependents and therefore not entitled to compensation, and consequently the deduction applied by the Tribunal at 1/4th is erroneous since it should have been 1/3rd for only two dependents. It is also urged that the claim ought to have been assessed on the basis of contributory negligence and that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at a rate higher than the 6% consistent with prevailing bank rates and in directing that interest be paid from the date of application rather than from the date of award. The appellant asserts that the compensation determined is excessive and contrary to settled legal principles, especially when the Tribunal had already allowed the Insurance Company’s application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 26.10.2015, entitling it to contest the claim on all grounds available to the owner and driver. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JD-9663 was being driven by Respondent No. 5 without a valid and effective driving licence for a transport vehicle at the time of the accident. It is pointed out that Respondent No. 5 possessed only an LMV licence (Exhibit D-1), which was the sole licence in existence on the date of the accident, whereas the Tribunal erred in relying on Exhibit D-6, a document procured much later, on 24.04.2015, nearly two months after the accident of 27.02.2015. It is contended that the said document was fraudulently obtained by Respondent No. 6, the owner of the vehicle, in an attempt to create false compliance, as evident from his admission in paragraph 9 of his deposition that Exhibit D-6 was obtained through a relative of the driver. The counsel submits that Exhibit D-6 is ex facie fabricated, as 5 it differs from Exhibit D-1 in address, photograph, surname, and issuing authority, and was never even referred to by Respondent No. 5 in his pleadings or testimony. Moreover, as per Sections 6(3) and 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any additional class of vehicle should have been endorsed on the existing licence rather than issuing a completely new one, further confirming manipulation. It is emphasised that Exhibit D-1 was seized by police under the seizure memo (Exhibit P-5), that Respondent No. 5 did not enter the witness box to support the authenticity of Exhibit D-6, and that even the two licences bear contradictory validity periods, thereby conclusively establishing that Respondent No. 5 had no lawful authority to drive a transport vehicle on the relevant date. Consequently, the offending vehicle was driven without a valid licence and the appellant cannot be saddled with liability. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal erred in computing compensation by treating Respondents 3 and 4 :- major legal heirs of the deceased, as dependents despite their not being entitled to dependency benefits. As a result, the Tribunal wrongly applied a 1/4th deduction instead of the legally permissible 1/3rd deduction for only two dependent family members. It is also argued that the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence despite the material on record warranting such finding, leading to an inflated award. The counsel submits that the rate of interest ought to have been restricted to 6% per annum in line with prevailing bank rates and Supreme Court precedents, and the Tribunal further erred in directing payment of interest from the date of the claim petition instead of the date of award. 6 On these grounds, it is urged that the compensation awarded is excessive, legally unsustainable, contrary to settled principles, and that liability has been wrongly fastened upon the Insurance Company despite the Tribunal having permitted the appellant to contest the matter under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. I Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. 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. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.43,48,959/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the absence of a valid and effective driving licence with Respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is not in dispute that, on the date of the accident, Respondent No. 5 held an LMV (non-transport) licence, as evidenced by Exhibit D-1, and that the subsequent licence (Exhibit D-6), relied upon by the owner, was obtained only after the accident. The contention of the Insurance Company is that, in the absence of an endorsement authorising the driver to operate a transport vehicle, he was incompetent to drive the offending truck and, therefore, the insurer 7 ought to be exonerated. 9. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that a person holding a valid LMV licence is competent to drive a transport vehicle having a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kg, and that no separate or specific endorsement is required for driving such a vehicle. In light of this binding precedent, the mere absence of a transport-vehicle endorsement on Exhibit D-1 cannot be construed as a breach of policy conditions so as to absolve the insurer of its statutory liability. Accordingly, the submission of the Insurance Company that the driver was “not duly licensed” stands rejected. 10. The further contention of the appellant that Respondents 3 and 4, being major married children, could not have been treated as dependents and that the Tribunal ought to have applied a 1/3rd deduction instead of 1/4th, is also devoid of merit. Dependency, in motor accident claims, is not to be determined with rigid precision; rather, it is assessed in the context of the overall factual matrix, including the age of the deceased, the constitution of the family, and the extent of filial dependence, economic or otherwise. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding, based on evidence, that the family members were dependent on the deceased. 11. Even assuming arguendo that two of the legal heirs were non- 8 dependents, the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121, has consistently held that minor deviations in the deduction ratio, where the overall computation remains just and reasonable, do not justify appellate interference. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, arbitrariness, or legal error in the Tribunal’s determination. The challenge to the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is, therefore, rejected. 12. The remaining grounds urged by the appellant, including those relating to alleged contributory negligence, the rate and commencement of interest, and the purported excessiveness of the award, have also been found to be without substance. The computation made by the Tribunal conforms to the settled principles governing the quantification of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned award warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The award dated 26.03.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 161/2015 is affirmed in its entirety, including the deduction towards personal expenditure. 14. The amount awarded, along with interest as directed by the Tribunal, shall be deposited before the Tribunal and released to the claimants in accordance with law within two months from today. 9 15. The record of the Claims Tribunal be transmitted back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website. 04/11/2025 21/11/2025 Operative Full 21/11/2025 21/11/2025 Saxena