1 2025:CGHC:48654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1693 of 2018 1 - Bhukhan Lal S/o Late Pachkaud Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kathiya No. 1, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Bai W/o Bhukhan Lal Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kathiya No. 1, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anusuiya W/o Late Shravan Dhruv Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kathiya No. 1, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Visambhar S/o Rupsingh Dhruv R/o Bardih, Police Station Suhela Post Office - Hirami, Tahsil Simga, District - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashwani Dhruv S/o Pakallu Ram Dhruv R/o Bardih, Post Office - Hirami, Tahsil Simga, District - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Officer Incharge ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Police Station Devendra Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.08 14:26:24 +0530 2 For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 22.09.2025 1. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') challenging the award dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.692/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed an application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in part, awarded Rs.6,34,800/- as total compensation in a fatal accident case with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and while exonerating the Insurance Company, fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 11.06.2016, at about 9.00 PM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kharora, District Raipur near Kathiya Road, non- applicant No.1 i.e. driver of the motorcycle bearing 3 registration No.CG-04-KW-6190 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) dashed the motorcycle of Santosh Dhruw bearing registration No.CG-04-LB-6785, due to which Santosh Dhruw sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. 3. Appellants/claimants, who are married brother, sister-in-law and married but widowed sister have filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.31,30,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 35 years and working as Mason as also earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 4. Non-applicants No.1 and 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle submitted reply to claim application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability, if any, to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company submitted reply to claim application, resisting the claim. It was further pleaded that non-applicant no. 1 was driving without a valid licence, leading to an offence under Section 3/181 of the M.V. Act, violating policy conditions. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.CG-04- LB-6785, whose driver, owner, and insurer were necessary parties; hence, the claim was not maintainable for non- 4 joinder of parties. It was also stated that the owner and police failed to inform the insurer under Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, hence, Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 6. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability, and a sum of Rs. 6,34,800/- was awarded as compensation, fastening the liability to pay the said amount upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award due, just, and proper compensation under various permissible heads and has instead granted a meagre amount, which does not meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and modified so as to grant fair and adequate compensation to the appellants. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in appreciating and ascertaining the correct monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was engaged in labour work and would have earned not less than Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have presumed the monthly income accordingly while 5 computing the compensation. It is next submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. In view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 50% of the monthly income should have been added towards future prospects. The omission to do so has resulted in serious prejudice and injustice to the claimants. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal also deserves reconsideration in accordance with the age of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under various conventional heads. For loss of estate, only Rs.15,000/- has been awarded, whereas a sum of at least Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been granted. Similarly, no compensation has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, while a reasonable amount of Rs.75,000/- each should have been granted to appellants No.1 to 3. For funeral expenses, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded is insufficient and should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. It is contended that identical issue has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even major brothers and sisters of deceased would be entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. Reliance has also been placed 6 in the matter of Seema Rani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283. It is further argued that amount of compensation to be calculated in the light of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon them, despite the vehicle being duly insured with the non-applicant No. 3 on the date of the accident. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid and subsisting policy of insurance, and all terms and conditions of the said policy were duly complied with. The vehicle was being driven with the consent and knowledge of the owner, and as such, the insurer is statutorily liable to indemnify the insured in respect of any claim arising out of the said accident. He further submits that there was no willful breach of the policy conditions on the part of the driver or the owner. Even if, for 7 the sake of argument, there existed any alleged irregularity or technical defect, the same cannot be construed as a fundamental breach sufficient to exonerate the Insurance Company from its statutory liability under Section 149 of the M.V. Act. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the burden of proving the alleged breach of policy conditions lies upon the insurer, which has not been satisfactorily discharged in the present case. No cogent evidence was brought on record by the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not duly licensed or that any other violation had occurred so as to absolve it of its liability. In any event, even if the Tribunal finds that there was a technical breach of policy condition, the insurer may be directed to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly prayed that non-applicants No. 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, may kindly be excluded from the liability to pay the amount of compensation, and the entire liability may be fastened upon the Insurance Company, which is legally bound to indemnify them. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, 8 proper, and based on due appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased in the absence of cogent proof and correctly refrained from adding any amount towards future prospects, as no credible evidence regarding the nature or regularity of employment was produced. The compensation awarded under various heads is adequate and reasonable. It is further submitted that, in view of the clear violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned award. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record carefully. 12. From a bare perusal of the claim petition as well as the evidence adduced by the claimants, it transpires that although the claimants are major persons, they were dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood. In this context, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender (supra), which has subsequently been reiterated in Seema Rani (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, has categorically held that even if the claimants are major and earning members, they would still be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of 9 dependency, if it is established that they were, in fact, dependent upon the deceased at the time of the accident. Accordingly, in the present case, since the evidence clearly establishes that the claimants were financially and emotionally dependent upon the deceased, they are rightly entitled to be awarded just and fair compensation under the relevant heads. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in case of Birender (supra) has considered the issue with regard to award of compensation to major and earning sons against death of their mother and held thus : “12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus : (SCC pp.647-48, paras 9- 12) 10 “9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act. 10..... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same. 11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves 11 on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g). 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 : (AIR 1987 SC 1690)] a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.” 13. In paragraph 15 of Manjuri Bera (supra), while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed 12 that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation”. The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning. 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was 13 fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” 14. Further, in the matter of Seema Rani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “9. ……..This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356, had expounded that major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The Court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her. 10. …..Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation.” 14 15. Applying the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and having regard to the nature of employment of the deceased as well as the dependency of the present appellants upon him, this Court finds it appropriate to re-assess the compensation. In the present case, the deceased was employed as a mason; however, the claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is to be assessed on a notional basis. On the date of accident i.e. 11.06.2016 deceased was stated to be working as Mason, hence, considering the nature of occupation, cost of living, date of accident, wage structure and price index, this Court of the view that income of deceased can be taken as Rs.6,107/- per month. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has specified the head on which compensation under other conventional heads to be awarded, such as, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, further quantified the compensation for each head as Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance 15 Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 17. Since appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1 and is dependent upon her husband, and not upon the deceased, who is her brother-in-law, she is not entitled to any amount of compensation towards loss of dependency or loss of consortium. Accordingly, only appellants No. 1 and 3, who are the brother and widowed sister of the deceased, shall be entitled to compensation under the various conventional heads, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned rulings. 18. The age of the deceased, as stated in the claim application, is 35 years, which is corroborated by the postmortem report. In view of the above, it is appropriate to reckon the age of the deceased as 35 years. Income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,107/- per month i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. By adding 40% of established income towards future prospects as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), total annual income of deceased will come to Rs.1,02,598/- (73,284 x 40% = 29,314 and 73,284 + 29,314). After deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was bachelor, annual loss of dependency will be Rs.51,299/- (1,02,598 / 2 = 51,299). Upon applying the multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency will come to Rs.8,20,784/- (51,299 x 16). Apart from above amount of 16 compensation towards loss of dependency, claimants No.1 and 3 are further entitled for a sum of Rs.96,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. 19. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants No. 1 and 3 are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 29,314 = Rs.1,02,598/- 3. 1/2 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 1,02,598 / 2 = Rs.51,299/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 16 applied 51,299 x 16 Rs.8,20,784/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.96,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.9,52,784/- 17 20. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,52,784/-. After deducting Rs.6,34,800/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,17,984/-. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants No. 1 and 3 shall be entitled to Rs.3,17,984/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 22. Since the Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground of breach of policy conditions, the respondents No. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, are hereby directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants/claimants No. 1 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh