1 2025:CGHC:59469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2034 of 2019  Sudhit Kumar S/o. Santosh Kumar Lohiya Aged About 32 Years Resident Of In Front Of New Bus Stand, Santosh Petrol Pump, Balod, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Shivbai Alias Rinabai Vishwakarma W/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Nalpara Mujgahan, Sorar, Ward No. 1, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Mihan Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Late Jitendra Kumar Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Mother Shivbai Alias Rinabai Vishwakarma. Resident Of Village Nalpara Mujgahan, Sorar, Ward No. 1, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Subhashini Vishwakarma D/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Mother Shivbai Alias Rinabai Vishwakarma. Resident Of Village Nalpara Mujgahan, Sorar, Ward No. 1, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. Babulal S/o. Rajaram Sahu Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Ward No. 1 Paarras, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office In Front Of Karnataka Bank, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.09 14:26:27 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : None, though served For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 8.12.2025 1) Owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (C.G.) in Claim No. 21/2018 dated 7.5.2019, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 12,34,800/- with interest @ 10% p.a. has been fastened upon the driver and owner of offending vehicle. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 1.1.2018, deceased Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarama was travelling in the offending vehicle MATADOR bearing registration No. CG-04-G-0378. Driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently. Resultantly, the vehicle turned turtle. In the accident, Jitendra sustained injuries and died. The claimants, who are the widow and children of the deceased filed claim case and pleaded that deceased was aged 33 years and used to earn Rs.21,000/- per month. They claimed a total sum of Rs.39,14,000/-. Driver and owner filed reply and denied the contents of claim application. Insurance Company filed reply and took plea that on the date of accident, driver of the 3 offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license and there was no valid permit too. Learned tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal committed an error of law while exonerating the Insurance Company. He further submits that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 5 - Insurance Company and on the date of accident, driver had valid and effective license. With regard to permit, he submits that in absence of valid permit, learned Tribunal should have fastened the liability with the Insurance Company. He contends that learned Tribunal has granted compensation at higher side and applied interest @ 10% which requires reconsideration. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that appellant herein failed to submit permit of the offending vehicle before the learned Tribunal. He further submits that offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit, therefore learned Tribunal fastened the liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He contends that issue with regard to ‘permit’ is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Versus TATA AIG General Insurance Company 4 Limited and Others1 has held that where driver and owner failed to place on record documents to prove that the vehicle has a valid permit, onus of proof cannot be shifted upon the insurer. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, death of the deceased is not disputed by the appellant herein ; age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle produced effective and valid driving license, therefore contention made by Mr. Awasthi to the effect that driver did not have valid and effective driving license appears to be erroneous. Perusal of award and documents placed on record would show that owner of offending vehicle failed to produce permit of the vehicle. 7) Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the owner failed to produce permit of the vehicle. It is not a case where owner of the vehicle was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing, rather it is a case where the owner filed reply and participated in the proceedings. Learned Tribunal considered the age of deceased 33 years ; assessed income to be Rs. 6,500/- per month ; granted 40% future prospects ; deducted 1/3rd dependency towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 16. Learned 1. (2018) 7 SCC 558 5 Tribunal further granted reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. However, with regard to rate of interest, learned Tribunal has granted compensation @ 10% per annum which appears to be harsh and in my opinion, appropriate interest rate would be 7% per annum. 8) Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to liability are hereby affirmed and the owner of the offending vehicle shall indemnify the compensation with interest @ 7% per annum. 9) In that view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of. The Insurance Company is made liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants with amended interest rate, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from the appellant herein i.e. owner of offending vehicle, in accordance with law. In conclusion, the Insurance Company is directed to pay/disburse the awarded compensation to the claimants first and recover the same from owner. 10) There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a