1 2025:CGHC:30741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 175 of 2017 1 - Manager Chola Mandlam Insurance Company Limited Office- In Front Of L.I.C. Building, Raipur, Police Station Pandri, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G.04-E/3087, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Geetabai Wd/o Late Bihariram Dhruv, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pali, Gram Panchayat Pendra, Thana Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Poshanlal Dhruv S/o Late Bihariram Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pali, Gram Panchayat Pendra, Thana Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lekhram Dhruv S/o Late Bihariram Dhruv, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Pali, Gram Panchayat Pendra, Thana Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Abdul Hafiz Khan S/o Abdul Rasid Khan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Other Address- Gandhinagar Kalibadi, Near Gareeb Watch Center, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G.04-E/3087, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Abdul Shamim S/o Abdul Salim, R/o Gandhinagar Kalibadi, Near Gareeb Watch Center, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Bus No. C.G.04-E/3087, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 in Claim Case No. 36/2015 (“Smt. Geetabai & Ors. vs. Abdul Hafiz Khan & Ors.”), whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- to respondents No. 1 to 3 herein with interest @ 6% per annum, and in default of payment within stipulated period the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 represented by Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, as per the claim application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it was stated, inter alia, that on 27.12.2014, between 8:30 PM and 9:00 PM, near Ghoda Jain Rice Mill under Police Station Mahasamund, respondent No. 4, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into a motorcycle on which the deceased, Mr. Bihariram Dhruv, was traveling along with Mr. Komal Nishad, resulting in both sustaining fatal injuries and dying on the spot. It was further pleaded that the accident was reported to the concerned police station, where upon Crime No. 795/2014 was registered against respondent No. 4. It was also submitted that the deceased Bihariram was 31 years old and was earning Rs. 300 per day from his profession. Accordingly, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 27,50,000/- under various heads. 4 Notices of the claim application were issued to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as well as to the appellant, and all parties appeared before the learned Tribunal. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed their written statements, denying the allegations made in the claim application, and contended that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident. They further submitted that respondent No. 4 was holding a valid and effective driving license, and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant. The appellant also filed its written version, denying the allegations and claiming that the accident occurred due to the fault of the motorcycle rider, who was carrying three persons on a two-wheeler at the time of the accident, which itself was in violation of traffic rules. The appellant also denied the profession and income of the deceased and contended that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal, after framing issues based on the pleadings and upon appreciation of evidence, documents, and materials on record, decided the issues against the appellant. However, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are alleged to be contrary to law, and the compensation awarded is said to be excessive and without proper material. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to prove rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 4, and that the Tribunal did not conduct a proper inquiry as 5 required under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. While the Tribunal may adopt a summary procedure, it is still required to adhere to the basic legal principles of establishing liability and quantifying compensation. The appellant has already been impleaded as a necessary party under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is patently erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law, being contrary to the facts, circumstances, and evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record in their proper perspective and has passed the impugned award in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. It is respectfully submitted that the Tribunal did not conduct a proper inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. He further submits that the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle has not been satisfactorily established by the claimants. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who was found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 128 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, and therefore, the burden was on the claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 to prove that the respondent No. 4 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which they have failed to do. Additionally, the compensation awarded is excessive and not commensurate with the facts and evidence on record. The Learned Tribunal has erred in not making an appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses, particularly when respondents No. 2 and 3 are majors and cannot be considered as dependents upon the deceased. The deduction ought to have been 50% instead of 1/3rd, and further, the income and profession of the deceased have not been duly proved by the claimants. Therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be suitably reduced. The Tribunal ought to have granted just, fair and reasonable compensation based on cogent evidence and established legal principles. The appellant humbly reserves the right to raise such other and further grounds as may be available during the course of hearing or as the proceedings progress. In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned award, being perverse, based on conjectures and surmises, deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 7 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,85,000/- 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. None for respondents No. 4 & 5 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, this Court finds no substantial error or illegality in the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal that would warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, alleging perversity and arbitrariness in the impugned award, do not stand scrutiny in light of the evidence adduced by the claimants. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence brought on record and has arrived at its findings after due consideration of the same. The involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident has been established by cogent evidence and the 8 findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the law applicable thereto. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon holistic consideration of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is neither perverse nor suffers from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference. The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. Cross Appeal 11. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 90,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 30,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 60,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 50 to 55 years and respondents No. 1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,60,000/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,85,00/- in favour of the wife and children of the deceased 9 with interest @ 6% per annum and in default of payment within stipulated period the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 12. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,85,000/- 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. 13. 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. 14. None for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. 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, 10 nor a Bonanza. 17. 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. 18. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 27,12,2014. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 7,500/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 90,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 9,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 99,000/-. 19. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 to 55 years and respondents No. 1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 33,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 66,000/-. In view of judgment 11 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 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 7,26,000/-. The respondents No. 1 to 3/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. (40,000/X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 9,06,000/- in the following manner: S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 7,26,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 12 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 9,06,000/- 20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,06,000/-. After deducting Rs. 7,85,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,21,000/-. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 1,21,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhancubuntu 22. ed 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 Gopal Singh/Raghu Jat