1 2025:CGHC:50188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 657 of 2017 1 - Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Chouhan Estate, Near Mourya Talkies, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Non-Applicant No.3/ Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.07/5424, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shabbir Haider S/o Late Abdul Gaffar, Aged About 44 Years R/o A.V./ B/17-D, Sector-2, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Shahnaz Hiader W/o Shabbir Haider, Aged About 40 Years R/o A.V./ B/17-D, Sector-2, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Saista Fizza S/o Shabbir Haider, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Shabbir Haider, R/o A.V./ B/17-D, Sector-2, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramesh Kashyap S/o Late Shri Jiwanlal, R/o Reshne Awas, G-3, Kosanagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Non-Applicant No.1/ Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.07/5424, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - G.Midya S/o Late Shri U.N.Midya, R/o Quarter No.35, Nehru Nagar, Old Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Non- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Applicant No.2/ Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.07/5424, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (08/10/2025) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 24.01.2017 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), in Claim Case No. 17/2015 (Annexure A-1), the appellant hereby prefers this appeal. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the claimants, being the father, mother, and sister of the deceased Sohrab, have filed a claim under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 73,04,000/- for the death of Sohrab. It is undisputed that respondent no. 4 was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident, respondent no. 5 was the registered owner of the said vehicle, and the appellant is the insurer. According to the claimants, on 08.10.2012, at approximately 4:30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding towards Nehru Nagar on his motorcycle, the vehicle driven by respondent no. 4 collided with him near an ATM, causing Sohrab to fall and sustain grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, where he was declared dead. The deceased, aged about 19 years at the time, was a 3 healthy young man who worked as a photographer and videographer, earning a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-, which he utilized to support his family and bear the educational expenses of respondent no. 3. The accident was duly reported, leading to the registration of FIR No. 704/2012 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent legal proceedings against respondent no. 4.The claimants, being the father, mother, and sister of the deceased Sohrab, have filed a claim under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 73,04,000/- for the death of Sohrab. It is undisputed that respondent no. 4 was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident, respondent no. 5 was the registered owner of the said vehicle, and the appellant is the insurer. According to the claimants, on 08.10.2012, at approximately 4:30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding towards Nehru Nagar on his motorcycle, the vehicle driven by respondent no. 4 collided with him near an ATM, causing Sohrab to fall and sustain grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, where he was declared dead. The deceased, aged about 19 years at the time, was a healthy young man who worked as a photographer and videographer, earning a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-, which he utilized to support his family and bear the educational expenses of respondent no. 3. The accident was duly reported, leading to the registration of FIR No. 704/2012 under Section 4 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent legal proceedings against respondent no. 4. 3. Further, respondents no. 4 and 5, in their separate written statements, have contested the claim, denying the occurrence of the accident as described by the claimants, specifically disputing the place, time, and circumstances. They alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, asserting that respondent no. 4 was driving at a moderate speed. They further denied the deceased’s age, occupation, and income, characterizing the claim as exaggerated and baseless. The appellant insurer contended that no documentary proof regarding the deceased’s age, profession, or income was furnished, and highlighted the absence of information from respondents no. 4 and 5 concerning the incident and FIR. The insurer also asserted a breach of policy conditions, thereby denying liability to indemnify the claim. After examining the evidence and documents on record, the tribunal held the insurer liable to compensate the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the Insurance Company and also erred in failing to consider that the deceased did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, which disentitles the claimants from full compensation. Furthermore, the vehicle was operated in violation 5 of the insurance policy conditions, thereby absolving the appellant of liability. The tribunal also overlooked the contributory negligence of the deceased, warranting an apportionment of liability between the insurers of both the motorcycle and the car. Additionally, the claim was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The appellant, being an income tax payer, cannot be deemed a dependent of the deceased under the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and Y.P. Shakuntala , necessitating application of the multiplier for a bachelor’s case rather than the age of the mother. Finally, as the motorcycle lacked valid registration and the deceased’s driving credentials remain unproven, the negligence attributable to the deceased demands recognition of contributory negligence, supported by binding precedents including Renuka Devi , Smt. Annamma Philips , and APSRTC v. Hemlata , thereby rendering the tribunal’s award liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 respectfully opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, contending that the arguments put forth lack merit and do not warrant interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was rendered after due consideration of the evidence on record and in strict conformity with the applicable legal principles and statutory 6 provisions. The counsel further submits that the award granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with law accordingly. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record with utmost circumspection, especially the judgment under challenge herein. 7. Considering the facts and the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 1 this Court finds that 40% towards future prospects is justified. The Tribunal’s award of 50% future prospects exceeds the permissible limit and is hereby reduced to 40%. 8. Regarding the claimants’ appeal for enhancement, it is noted that the Tribunal failed to award amounts under certain heads. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra) , claimants are entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects, along with compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. Accordingly, the award is modified as follows: Sn. Heads Calculation 1. Income of the Deceased Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12) 2. Future Prospect 40% Rs.21,600/- 3. Deduction 1/2 Rs.37,800/- 4. Total Income of the Deceased Rs.37,800/- 5. Multiplier of 18 Rs.6,80,400/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 6. Loss of Consortium (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3) 7. Loss of Estate (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs,18,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.18,000/- Total amount of compensation : Rs.8,60,400/- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation is modified to Rs. 8,60,400/- from Rs. 10,29,000/-. There is a reduction of Rs. 1,68,600/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till realization. 10. The appeal is allowed in-part. The award dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award shall remain intact and unaltered. In case of any excess payment made over the modified amount, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the excess in accordance with law. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena