1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 715 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on : 18.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 17.10.2025 Branch Manager, Chola Mandlam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rajnandgaon Dist. Rajnandgaon At Present 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite L.I.C. Office, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application- Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. CG.-08-ZC- 0573). ... Appellant versus 1 - Ku. Rajkumari Verma D/o Prahlad Verma, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Botepar Police Station And Tahsil Ghumka, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dharam Singh Verma S/o Late Prahlad Verma, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Botepar Police Station And Tahsil Ghumka, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .(Claimants). 3 - Kumbhkaran Sahu S/o Anant Ram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Garrapar, Thana And Tahsil Khairagarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.08- ZC-0573). 4 - Shashank Kumar Das S/o S. K. Das, Aged About 45 Years R/o Sonarpara Rajnandgaon Tahsil And Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh . (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-08-ZC-0573). 5 - Kartar Das Ubhrani And Sons, Lakholi Road, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Old Owner of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-08 ZC-0573) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.17 18:05:33 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Benon, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 04.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.26/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and awarded Rs.7,60,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 07.02.2014 Dharamsingh Verma along with his father and mother, namely Prahlad Verma and Heera Bai were returning from Khairagarh to his village Botepar on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG- 08-G-7260, when he reached Umraopul near Amlipara, at that relevant time, one truck bearing registration No.CG-08-ZC-0573 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) coming from Khairagah City, dashed the motorcycle of Dharamsingh Verma, due to which, all of them 3 fell down. Prahlad Verma and Heera Bai suffered grievous injury over their head and they died on the spot as well as Dharamsingh Verma suffered fracture and he was permanently disabled. 3. The claimants, being the children of the deceased persons, have filed the claim petition and claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 61,50,000/- on account of sudden demise of their parents i.e. father and mother. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2, along with non-applicants No. 3 and 4, have filed counter-claims, which are discussed together due to their similarity. They contended that on the date of the accident, they were driving the truck slowly on the bridge, and the accident occurred because the motorcycle skidded and fell due to braking; their truck was not at fault. They held a valid driving license, and the truck was insured with non-applicant No. 3. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company) contends that non- applicant No. 1 did not have a valid license on the date of the accident. The deceased, Prahlad Verma, is alleged to be responsible, and the claimed compensation is inflated. The insurance policy was cancelled due to non-payment of the premium by the registered owner, Kartar Das Ubharani, who was notified by registered mail. Accordingly, the insurance company claims no liability. 6. Non-applicant No. 4 states that the vehicle was sold and transferred to non-applicant No. 2 six years prior, and he had no 4 knowledge of the dishonor of the premium cheque by non- applicant No. 2, nor was he informed by the insurance company. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,60,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No.1 to 3 of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. It is contended that the deceased were negligent and as such, claimants cannot be awarded any amount of compensation. The finding in respect of involvement of the offending vehicle is not in accordance with law because it was not found to be proved. The offending vehicle was not insured on the date and time of the accident. The premium was also not received. The accident was also not duly intimated. For obtaining insurance policy, a cheque was issued, however, it was dishonoured, as such, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed an 5 error in assessing the annual income of the deceased at only Rs.36,000/–, despite the fact that the accident in question resulted in the death of both parents of the minor children. It is further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been granted in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is also urged that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. Learned counsel submits that the computation of compensation is required to be re- assessed in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle submits that upon a careful appreciation of the material on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard are based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. 6 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and carefully perused the entire record of the claim case, including the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the documents placed on record. The submissions advanced on behalf of both sides have been duly considered in the light of the settled legal principles governing the determination of just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claim cases. 12. The Learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and submissions, while deciding the issue No.3 has held in paragraphs 13 to 27 that the insurance company failed to substantiate its claim regarding the insurance of the offending vehicle. Although it asserted that the policy in the name of non-applicant No. 2, Shashank Kumar Das, was fake and that the vehicle was insured in the name of non-applicant No. 4, Kartar Das Ubharani & Sons, it did not produce the original insurance policy, certified copies, or call relevant witnesses to prove issuance or cancellation due to dishonour of the premium cheque. Discrepancies were noted in the signatures, branch seals, and premium amounts mentioned in various exhibits i.e. Exhibits D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-9, and no explanation was provided regarding the cheque of Rs. 71,749/-. The purported motor proposal (Exhibit D-9) lacked proper authentication, and the agent mentioned therein was not examined. Further, non-applicant No. 2, Shashank Kumar Das, was shown to be the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of 7 the accident, and insurance policy submitted by him (Exhibit D-1) could not be disproved by the insurance company. Regarding the driver, Kumbhakaran, it was established that he held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and non- applicant No. 3 failed to prove otherwise. 13. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal held that non-applicant No. 3 failed to prove that the insurance policy in the name of non- applicant No. 2 was not valid or that the policy in the name of non- applicant No. 4 had been issued and cancelled. The contention regarding the driver’s license was also held to be “not proved.” 14. Further in paragraph-28, while deciding the issue No.4, the Claims Tribunal has held that non-applicant No. 2, Shashank Kumar Das, is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Non-applicant No. 4, Kartar Das Ubharani & Sons, admitted that the vehicle was sold to non-applicant No. 2 approximately six years prior and the ownership was duly transferred. The RC of the vehicle confirms that it was previously registered in the name of Kartar Das Ubharani & Sons and was transferred to Shashank Kumar Das on 09.12.2010. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 2 was the lawful owner of the said offending vehicle. 15. From a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that although the insurance company contended that the policy for the offending vehicle (Truck number CG 08 ZC 0573) was cancelled, the 8 evidence on record does not establish that such cancellation was duly communicated to the relevant parties. The insurance policy in question, bearing No. 3379/01002979/000/00, has been alleged to be forged; however, this allegation has not been substantiated with credible evidence. The notices purportedly sent regarding the cancellation of the policy were either not received or their authenticity remains unproved. 16. It is a well-settled principle that once an insurance policy has been issued, the insurer remains liable unless the policy is validly cancelled and the insured is duly informed of such cancellation. Mere cancellation on the insurer’s part, without proper notice, cannot absolve the insurer from liability. In the present case, there is no conclusive evidence that Respondent No. 2, Shashank Kumar Das, or any other party entitled to notice, received information of the cancellation. 17. Further, the record establishes that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was effectively insured. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the submissions and documentary evidence, rightly held that the offending vehicle was duly covered under an insurance policy and correctly fastened liability for the payment of compensation upon the insurance company. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding. The insurance company cannot be exonerated 9 from its liability merely on the ground of alleged cancellation, which was not duly communicated to the insured. 18. It is pertinent to mention that though the claimants have not filed any cross-objection/cross-appeal seeking enhancement, looking to the benevolent nature of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even in absence of cross-objection, the Court is empowered to enhance the compensation if the award is found to be inadequate. 19. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 10 20. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is observed that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and other conventional heads on the death of father and mother of the claimants. 22. In the present case, both the father and mother of the claimants tragically died in a single accident. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have determined and awarded just and proper compensation, reflecting the actual loss suffered by the claimants. 23. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, the claimants had pleaded that the annual income of the deceased parents was Rs.3,00,000/–. However, they failed to produce any documentary or cogent evidence in support of the said assertion, such as salary certificates, income tax returns, or any other reliable material establishing the claimed income. In the absence of such proof, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess the income of both the deceased father and mother of the claimants on a notional basis at Rs.36,000/– per annum each. 11 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence available on record, and the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for determination of notional income in such situations, this Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal. The assessment of notional income at Rs.36,000/– per annum for each of the deceased is found to be just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 25. It is an admitted fact that on the date of the accident, deceased Prahlad Verma was aged about 45 years and deceased Heera Bai was aged about 40 years. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 25% of the established income is to be made towards future prospects where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and aged between 40 to 50 years. Accordingly, by adding 25% towards future prospects, the annual income of each of the deceased is enhanced from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.36,000 + 25% of Rs.36,000 = Rs.45,000/-). 26. Since the deceased left behind their minor children as dependents, 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of each deceased, in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). After such deduction, the annual contribution of each deceased towards the dependents would come to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.45,000 - 1/3rd = Rs.30,000/-). 12 27. Considering the age of the deceased Prahlad Verma (45 years) and deceased Heera Bai (40 years), the appropriate multiplier as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) would be 15. Thus, the total loss of dependency for each deceased would amount to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 15 = Rs.4,50,000/-). Accordingly, the total loss of dependency for both deceased parents together would come to Rs.9,00,000/-. 28. The scope and ambit of the term “consortium” have been further clarified and expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra). The Hon’ble Court has held that the expression consortium is not confined merely to spousal consortium, but also includes parental consortium and filial consortium, depending upon the relationship between the deceased and the claimants. In the present case, since both parents of the claimants have died in the accident, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards parental consortium for the loss of love, care, guidance, and affection of each parent. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium for each deceased parent, making the total amount under this head Rs.1,60,000/-. 29. Further, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses for each 13 deceased, making a total of Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate for each deceased, thereby making another total of Rs.30,000/- under this head. 30. Moreover, as per the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 1, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are liable to be enhanced by 10% every three years to keep pace with inflation and changing economic conditions. In view of the said principle, a corresponding enhancement of 10% is required to be granted in the present case on the amounts awarded under these conventional heads. 31. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion and recalculation of compensation under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned case laws, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the following heads: Sl. No . Head Deceased Father Deceased Mother Total Awarded Amount 1. Income of deceased Rs.36,000/- per annum Rs.36,000/- per annum Rs.72,000/- 2. 25% of (1) above to be added as future Rs.45,000/- (36,000 x 25% = 9,000) Rs.45,000/- (36,000 x 25% = 9,000) Rs.90,000/- 14 prospects 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.30,000/- (45,000 / 3 = 15,000) Rs.30,000/- (45,000 / 3 = 15,000) Rs.60,000/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 applied Rs.4,50,000/- (30,000 x 15) Rs.4,50,000/- (30,000 x 15) Rs.9,00,000/- 5. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/- (15,000 + 3,000) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- (15,000 + 3,000) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.36,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to both the claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs.96,000/- (40,000 + 8,000 x 2) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.96,000/- (40,000 + 8,000 x 2) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,92,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- (15,000 + 3,000) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- (15,000 + 3,000) with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.36,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.5,82,000/- Rs.5,82,000/- Rs.11,64,000/- 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion and recalculation, the total compensation payable to the claimants on account of the death of both parents, i.e., father and mother of the claimants, is computed at Rs.11,64,000/-. Since the learned Claims Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.7,60,000/-, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,04,000/-. 33. Consequently, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced 15 amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal till the date of actual realization. All other terms and conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal in respect of disbursement and apportionment shall remain intact. 34. It is an admitted position on record that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the liability to satisfy the award shall rest upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Insurance company therefore, directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, as determined and modified by this Court, within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, in favour of the claimants. In the event of failure to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, the claimants shall be entitled to execute the award in accordance with law. 35. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company fails and is accordingly dismissed, subject to the modifications made above. 36. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be remitted forthwith along with a certified copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh