1 2025:CGHC:57620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1698 of 2018 1 - Savita Bai W/o Amit Kumar Baghel Aged About 25 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhayram S/o Bodhanram Baghel Aged About 44 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Aashabai W/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 43 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Karishma Baghel D/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Rima Baghel D/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - G. Ramaiya S/o B. Narsaiya Through Purshottam, S/o Savarmal Parik, Through M/s Durga Matha Bulk Carrier, House No. 17-1-388-P/73, Puran Bihar Society, Lakshminagar, Saidbad, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). (Driver Of Vehicle No. Ap 11-X-9774)., District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 2 - Purshottam S/o Savarmal Parik Through M/s Durga Matha Bulk Carrier, House No. 17-1-388-P/73, Puran Bihar Society, Lakshminagar, Saidbad, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). (Owner Of Vehicle No. Ap - 11-X-9774)., District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 3 - Cholamandalam M.S. General Ins. Co. Ltd., Through Officer Incharge, Cholamandalam M.S. General Ins. Co. Ltd. Hinduja Complex, Parasnagar Chowk, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Ap- 11-X-9774)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 MAC No. 708 of 2018 1 - Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Office In Charge, Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Hinduja Complex, Parasnagar Chauck, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, At Present 2nd Floor, Simran Towers, In Front Of Lic Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Ap-11/x-9774), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Savita Bai Wd/o Amit Kumar Baghel Aged About 25 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhayram S/o Bodhan Baghel Aged About 44 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashabai W/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 43 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Karishma Baghel D/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Rima Baghel D/o Abhayram Baghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Kuthrail, Post Office Manhora, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - G. Ramaiyya S/o B. Narsaiyya R/o C/o Purshottam S/o Sawarmal Parik, Through M/s Durga Matha Balk Carrier, House No. 17-1-388-P/73, Puran Vihar Society, Laxminagar, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad (Andhrapradesh) Pin 500059 (Driver Of Vehicle No. Ap-11/x-9774), District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 7 - Purshottam S/o Sawarmal Parik Through M/s Durga Matha Balk Carrier, House No. 17-1-388-P/73, Puran Vihar Society, Laxminagar, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad (Andhrapradesh) Pin 500059 (Owner Of Vehicle No. Ap-11/x-9774), District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/11/2025 1. The present appeals are being decided by this common order, as both arise out of the same award dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 25/2013. M.A.C. No. 1698 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 708 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability imposed upon it by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the matter arises from a fatal road accident that occurred on 10.01.2012, when the deceased, Amit Kumar Baghel, was travelling towards Baitalpur on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-ZN-7342; upon reaching near village Narayanpur, a petrol tanker bearing registration No. AP-11- X-9774, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 6, violently collided with the motorcycle, causing Amit Kumar Baghel to sustain grievous injuries leading to his death on the spot. Following the accident, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Nandghat (Rajnandgaon), resulting in the registration of a criminal case against respondent No. 6. The deceased, aged about 25 years and employed at Banjrang Factory with an alleged monthly income of Rs. 18,000/-, was survived by his wife, parents, and sisters - claimants, who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of 4 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 45,65,000/-. The driver and owner of the offending tanker, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement, whereas the appellant-insurance company contested the claim, denying the allegations regarding negligence, the income and occupation of the deceased, and even the involvement of the tanker in the accident. The insurer asserted that the driver lacked a valid and effective licence for driving a hazardous goods vehicle under Section 14(2) of the Act, that the tanker did not possess the requisite permit for transporting hazardous goods, and that these violations absolved the insurer of liability. Evidence was led by both sides, including officials from the insurance company and the licensing authority; however, upon appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal held Issue No. 2 in favour of the claimants, finding that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence, and consequently directed the insurance company to satisfy the compensation awarded. MAC No. 1698 of 2018 3. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimants would submit that the impugned award dated 26.07.2017 is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and, therefore, deserves modification by way of substantial enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to award a just, fair, and proper amount of compensation under various heads, resulting in a grossly inadequate and unjust award that warrants interference by this 5 Court. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in ascertaining the correct monthly income of the deceased, who was a water supplier and would have earned at least Rs. 18,000 per month; however, the Tribunal assessed a much lower income, thereby diminishing the rightful compensation. It was further argued that the Tribunal committed a serious error by not calculating future prospects, which ought to have been taken at 50% of the monthly income considering the age of the deceased; failure to do so has caused great injustice, and even the multiplier applied requires reconsideration. Learned counsel for appellant / claimants emphasized that the amounts awarded under several conventional heads were unduly low. Only Rs. 20,000 was granted towards loss of estate instead of the minimum Rs. 1,00,000 that should have been awarded; for loss of love and affection of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, a meagre Rs. 60,000 was awarded jointly, whereas at least Rs. 1,50,000 (Rs. 75,000 each) ought to have been granted; similarly, for the loss of love and affection suffered by appellant Nos. 4 and 5, only Rs. 40,000 was granted jointly, though at least Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) should have been awarded. Even for last rites, the Tribunal erred in granting only Rs. 20,000, while Rs. 25,000 would have been a more appropriate amount. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Insurance company opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants – claimants. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants– claimants as well as learned counsel representing the respondent–Insurance Company and have carefully perused the record of the learned Tribunal. 6. The factum of the accident dated 10.01.2012, the rash and negligent driving of the petrol tanker bearing Registration No. AP- 11-X-9774 by respondent No. 6, and the resultant death of Amit Kumar Baghel stand well established on the basis of the FIR, the evidence adduced, and the findings of the Tribunal, which have not been materially disputed before this Court. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of the accident, and therefore, in view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, the claimants are entitled to the addition of 40% towards future prospects. The Tribunal’s failure to include future prospects has resulted in an undervaluation of the compensation and thus warrants interference. Hence, monthly income of deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal, is Rs. 6,000/-, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 72,000/- (Rs. 6,000 x 12). Accordingly, the annual income after adding 40% towards future prospects would come to Rs. 1,00,800/- (Rs. 72,000 + Rs. 28,800). The deceased was aged around 25 years at the time of the accident, hence, multiplier of 17 is correctly determined by the learned Tribunal. Further, considering that there are five dependents on the deceased, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 7 Accordingly, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,85,200/-. 7. Further, in accordance with the law relating to conventional heads, this Court finds that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are not in consonance with the prevailing standards. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled to 18,000 towards loss of estate and 18,000 towards ₹ ₹ funeral expenses. Likewise, the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate the entitlement of the dependents to consortium. As per the prevailing legal standards as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., each claimant is entitled to filial/spousal/parental consortium, as applicable. The claimants shall be entitled for grant of Rs. 2,40,000/- (40,000/- x 5 + 10% + 10%)(with increase of 10% in every three years). 8. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,61,200/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01. Towards loss of Income Rs. 12,85,200/- 02. Towards consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- 04. Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 05. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 15,61,200/- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,61,200/- from Rs. 10,98,000/-. Thus, there is an 8 enhancement of Rs. 4,63,200/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 10. As a result, the MAC No. 1698 of 2018 is allowed in part. The award dated 26.07.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. MAC No. 708 of 2018 11. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company would submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record, and is therefore bad in law. It was argued that the Tribunal completely failed to appreciate the mandatory requirements under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which stipulates that a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods is valid only for one year and requires renewal after the driver undergoes a prescribed one-day refresher training course. Learned counsel for appellant – insurance company emphasized that the driver of the offending tanker did not possess the requisite endorsement authorizing him to drive a hazardous goods vehicle, a fact confirmed by the RTO official examined by the appellant. Since respondents No. 6 and 7 neither filed their written statements nor produced any witness, the evidence led by the Insurance Company remained uncontroverted. It was further 9 submitted that the Tribunal ignored relevant statutory provisions and overlooked the fact that the vehicle was being plied in contravention of policy conditions as well as the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had produced the verification report of the driver’s licence and examined the concerned RTO officer, clearly establishing that there was a breach of policy conditions. Additionally, learned counsel for appellant – insurance company argued that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to carry hazardous goods and was operating without the mandatory permit, which constituted a further breach absolving the insurer of liability. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct a proper inquiry as required under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, and therefore its findings are unsustainable. Hence, the learned counsel for appellant prayed that the impugned award dated 26.07.2017 be set aside and that the appellant–Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 – claimants submits that the insurer cannot avoid its statutory liability towards third-party claimants, and at best, may seek right of recovery from the owner and driver. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record of the learned Tribunal, 10 including the impugned award dated 26.07.2017, as well as the evidence adduced by both sides. 14. The primary question requiring determination is whether the learned Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite the specific statutory breaches pleaded and proved by the insurer. 15. It is undisputed that the accident dated 10.01.2012 resulted in the unfortunate death of Amit Kumar Baghel, and that the offending vehicle—Petrol Tanker No. AP-11-X-9774—was owned by respondent No. 7 and driven by respondent No. 6. However, the liability of the insurer must be examined strictly in the light of compliance with the mandatory conditions of the insurance policy and the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. The evidence brought on record by the Insurance Company, including the licence verification report and the testimony of the concerned RTO official, clearly establishes that respondent No. 6 did not possess the requisite endorsement to drive a hazardous goods vehicle, as required under Section 14(2) of the Act. The statutory scheme mandates that a driver of a transport vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods must possess a specific endorsement, valid only for one year, and renewable upon completion of the prescribed one-day refresher training. The driver in the present case lacked such authorization. This evidence remained unchallenged, as respondents No. 6 and 7 neither filed 11 written statements nor led any evidence. The Tribunal, however, failed to give due consideration to this mandatory statutory requirement and erroneously treated the licence as valid and effective. 17. The record further reveals that the offending petrol tanker was being plied without a valid permit to transport hazardous goods. This fact, too, stood proved through the documentary evidence led by the Insurance Company, and once again, there was no rebuttal by respondents No. 6 or 7. Operation of the vehicle without the requisite hazardous goods permit constitutes a clear and material breach of policy conditions and of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such breach strikes at the root of the contract of insurance and directly affects the liability of the insurer. Despite this, the learned Tribunal failed to conduct the necessary inquiry contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act and mechanically fastened liability upon the insurer. 18. In light of the unrebutted evidence demonstrating statutory violations relating to both the driving licence and the mandatory hazardous goods permit, this Court is of the firm view that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in holding the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award. The findings of the Tribunal on these aspects are thus unsustainable in law. Once such material and fundamental breaches are established, the insurer cannot be saddled with liability to indemnify the insured, nor can it be directed to satisfy the award. 12 19. In view of the foregoing, the Insurance Company is hereby exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle, being in breach of statutory requirements and policy conditions, shall be solely liable to satisfy the award. However, in view of the doctrine of “pay and recover”, and in the interest of justice and claimants’ welfare, the insurance company is directed to satisfy the award amount in claim case in the first instance, along with interest. The insurance company shall thereafter be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as calculate above. 20. Accordingly, the MAC No. 708 of 2018is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE