1 2025:CGHC:55717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1118 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager Divisional - Office, Block No. 4 Jaiswal Building Main Road , Korba Station Road Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 3 ) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Durga Bai W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishor Kumar S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Their Mother Smt. Durga Bai ( Respondent No. 1 ) R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 2 ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hitesh Kumar S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Their Mother Smt. Durga Bai ( Respondent No. 1 ) R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 3 ) 4 - Ku. Harshita S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Their Mother Smt. Durga Bai ( Respondent No. 1 ) R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 4 ) 5 - Kumar Aged 5 Month , Minor, Through Their Mother Smt. Durga Bai ( Respondent No. 1 ) R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 5 ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Panchram S/o Babaram Aged About 48 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 6), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Khel Bai W/o Panchram Aged About 45 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 7 ) 8 - Ku. Gayatri D/o Panchram Aged About 16 Years Minor , Through Her Father Panchram ( Respondent No. 6 ) R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil - Kartala Police Station Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 8 ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Amar Das Mahant S/o Amol Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora , District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ) ( Non - Applicant No. 1 ) 10 - M/s Sarwmangla Construction , Plot No. 106, Stadium Road, T P Nagar Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ) ( Non - Applicant No. 02 ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1770 of 2018 1 - Smt. Durga Bai Wd/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Kishore Kumar S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 5 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Durga Bai, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 3 - Minor Hitesh Kumar S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 3 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Durga Bai, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Ku. Harshita D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Aged About 6 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Durga Bai, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Mayank S/o Late Dinesh Aged About 5 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Durga Bai, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Panchram S/o Shri Babaram Aged About 48 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Khel Bai W/o Shri Panchram Aged About 45 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Ku. Gayatri S/o Shri Pancharam Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Her Father Panchram, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Durga Bai, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Amar Das Mahant S/o Shri Amol Das Occupation- Driver, R/o Bhilai Bazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora District- Korba, 4 Chhattisgarh........(Driver Of Cg 12 S 0339), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Sarvamangala Construction Plot No. 106, Stadium Road, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgrah......(Owner Of Cg. 12 S 0339), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office At Block No.4, Jayswal Building, Main Road, Korba, Station Road, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of Cg 12 S 0339), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate for their respective parties. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (14.11.2025) 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same impugned order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Claim Case No.87/2016 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Korba (C.G.) whereby a compensation of Rs.14,64,326/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. The appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience MAC No.1118 of 2018 is taken as a lead case. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 30.06.2016, as per the case set up by the respondents/claimants, Dinesh Kumar, accompanied by Sewak Ram, was returning home from 5 the Railway Station on a motorcycle when, upon reaching Amjhar turning on the main road, the driver of the truck bearing registration No. CG-12-S-0339 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), respondent No. 9, suddenly brought the truck to an abrupt halt, causing the motorcycle to collide with its rear; as a result of the said impact, Dinesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed thereto during the course of treatment, leading respondents No. 1 to 8 to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹68,55,000/- against respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as well as the appellant-Insurance Company. Respondent No. 9, the driver, in his written statement, denied all material averments and asserted that the deceased, by driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently, had himself caused the accident by hitting the truck from behind; he further contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties and that, in any event, liability, if any, would fall upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Respondent No. 10, the owner of the truck, also denied the claim and adopted the stance that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident, additionally asserting that the truck was duly insured with the appellant, which would consequently bear liability, if established. The appellant- Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the claimants’ allegations, contending that respondent No. 9 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and reiterating that the deceased was solely responsible, thereby absolving the appellant of liability. Upon completion of inquiry, the learned Tribunal 6 passed an award of ₹14,65,326/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, holding respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as well as the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for payment of the awarded compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company respectfully submits that the impugned award suffers from serious legal infirmities and is, therefore, unsustainable in law; it is contended that the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, was himself driving the motorcycle in violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, inasmuch as he failed to maintain a safe distance from the offending vehicle, thereby demonstrating clear negligence on his part, which the learned Tribunal failed to duly consider. It is urged that the facts unmistakably establish contributory negligence, and the Tribunal ought to have apportioned liability accordingly, instead of fastening the entire liability jointly and severally on the appellant. It is further submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved by any cogent evidence, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Tribunal erred in granting future prospects in the absence of proof of stable income. Counsel also submits that the post-mortem report records the age of the deceased as 32 years, making the appropriate multiplier 16, but the Tribunal incorrectly applied multiplier 17, thereby inflating the compensation. It is further argued that the award is excessively high and deserves reduction to the extent permissible in law. Additionally, it is emphasized 7 that the driving licence of the deceased was neither seized by the police nor produced by the claimants, raising the presumption that he did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which further disentitles the claimants to the compensation awarded against the appellant. In light of these submissions, it is prayed that the award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No. 87/2016 be set aside insofar as it concerns the appellant–Insurance Company, or in the alternative, the compensation be suitably reduced in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased. In light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind wife, parents, children and sister making a total of eight dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding interest rate, warranting suitable enhancement of the interest awarded. In light of the above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 6. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.14,65,326/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,107/- per month, and no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to Rs.6,107/- as per Minimum Wages Act, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.73,284/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 9 10. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was married and the claimants are the parents and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.73,284 /- x 40/100 = Rs.29,313/- (Rs.29,313/- + Rs.73,284/- = 1,02,597/- Annual Income), deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/5 which comes to Rs.20,519/- (Rs.1,02,597/-/5 = Rs.20,519/-), the annual income comes to Rs.82,078/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.13,13,248/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.3,84,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,33,248/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.73,284/- (Rs.6,107/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 40% Rs.29,313/- (Rs.73,284/- x 40%) 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 10 03 Deduction 1/5 Rs.20,519/- (Rs.1,02,597 - 1/5) 04 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.82,078/- (1,02,597 – Rs.20,519/-) 05 Multiplier of 16 Rs.13,13,248/- (Rs.1,02,597 x 16) 06 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 07 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 08 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 8 Rs. 2,84,000/- Total Rs.17,33,248/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.17,33,248/- from Rs.14,65,326/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,67,922/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. As a result, both the appeals are allowed in part. The award dated 27.11.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 13. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena