1 2025:CGHC:54934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1468 of 2017 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Minu Complex, Kosabadi Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Amritbai Binjhvar W/o Late Budhram Binjhvar, Aged About 40 Years R/o House No.178 Dharampur Gevra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kapil Kumar Binjhvar S/o Late Budhram Binjhvar, Aged About 25 Years R/o House No.178 Dharampur Gevra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anil Kumar Binjhvar S/o Late Budhram Binjhvar, Aged About 23 Years R/o House No.178 Dharampur Gevra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Ramkunwar Binjhvar (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 02-07-2025). 5 - Kamal Kenvat S/o Gopal Kenvat, Aged About 33 Years R/o Chekpost Bhadrapara, Balko Thana Baloko, Present Resident Ward No.10 Pump House Colony, Police Chowky C S E B Chowk Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Vehicle Driver, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Har Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Shriniwas Agrawal, Resident G.E.Road, Tatibandh Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Plot RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 No.197, Near To Balaji Petrol, T.P.Nagar Korba, Police Chowky C S E B Chowk Korba, Thana And Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Vehicle Owner, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 to 6 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 4.7.2017 passed by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 97/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,39,7999/- with interest @ 7% 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. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 21.12.2013 at about 3:50 PM, deceased Budhram was driving a Bullet motorcycle with Chamra Singh as the pillion rider when a Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-6379 suddenly came from behind and dashed into their motorcycle, causing the instantaneous death of both Budhram and Chamra Singh at the spot; consequently, the legal 3 heirs of deceased Budhram filed a claim petition for compensation, which was duly awarded by the Tribunal. During the trial, the appellant-insurance company filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking production of the permit and fitness certificate of the offending trailer from its owner and driver, but neither of these documents was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal appointed a Commissioner to record the statement of the RTO, Raipur, and in compliance, the Commissioner recorded the statement of Animesh Kumar Tandan, an employee of the RTO, who categorically stated that no fitness certificate had been issued for the offending trailer for the relevant period; the seizure memo also reflected that no fitness certificate was submitted before the police. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence, recorded a finding that the offending trailer did not possess a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Further, the Tribunal erroneously awarded excessive compensation under the conventional head by granting Rs. 2,00,000/-, and awarded Rs. 17,39,799/- towards dependency, thereby determining a total compensation of Rs. 19,39,799/-, which is liable to be reconsidered. It is also pertinent that the application filed by the appellant-insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed by the Tribunal on 08.08.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that although the company has raised the plea that the vehicle in question was allegedly not equipped with a valid fitness certificate 4 and permit, a thorough examination of the record as well as the evidence brought on record reveals that the insurance company has failed to produce any substantive or cogent evidence in support of this contention. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly concluded that the insurer could not establish any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and further, the materials on record sufficiently demonstrate that the vehicle possessed the requisite permit, and insofar as the issue of fitness is concerned, the policy does not contain any stipulation to the effect that the absence of a fitness certificate would render the policy inoperative or ineffective. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh & Ors. vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2018 (7) SCC 558. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,39,799/- 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. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 6 opposes the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 8. In view of the submissions advanced and upon careful consideration of the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant/insurance company has failed to substantiate its plea regarding the absence of a valid fitness certificate and permit, and the Tribunal has rightly held that no breach of policy conditions was proved; moreover, the record clearly demonstrates that the vehicle possessed the requisite permit, and the insurance policy contains no stipulation rendering it ineffective for want of fitness. As regards the plea for enhancement raised by the claimants, the same does not warrant interference in the present appeal filed by the insurer. 9. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal and there being no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the insurance company stands dismissed. Cross appeal/objection 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 19,39,799/- in favour of the wife and children of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,39,799/- 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 6 and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits 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. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 & 6 opposes the same. 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. 33,397/- per month. I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,08,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. 7 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 44 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 1,56,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 3,12,000/-. 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 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 43,68,000/-. 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/respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.45,48,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 43,68,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% Rs. 1,44,000/- 8 +10%). 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. 45,48,000/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 45,48,000/-. After deducting Rs. 19,39,799/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 26,08,201/-. 20. In the result, the cross appeal filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 is partly allowed. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 26,08,201/- 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