1 2025:CGHC:49623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1977 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Raigarh Road, Pattalgaon, Police Station And Tahsil- Pattalgaon, District Jashpur, Branch Office, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sakha W/o Tulsi Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.18, Ghasimuda, Post Kersai, Police Station Tapkara, Tahsil- Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Mo. No.9340273730., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tulsi Yadav S/o Late Bhotka Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No.18, Ghasimuda, Post Kersai, Police Station Tapkara, Tahsil- Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Mo. No.9340273730., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Arvind Lakra S/o Late Jakhariyas Lakra Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sajbahar, Police Station Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh...................Driver, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Suresh Kumar Gupta M/s Balaji Transport Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh..................Owner., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 3 : None. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 179.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 2 herein. 3 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 2 represented by Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 21.06.17, the deceased Lalit Yadav was working when the offending bus, traveling from Ambikapur to Tapkara, reached National Highway Ambikapur- Hitapur near Ruwarpara. At about 9:20 am, the driver, driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, causing the bus to overturn. Lalit Yadav was trapped under the vehicle and suffered grievous injuries to his nose, mouth, head, chest, and other parts of his body, resulting in his death on the spot. An FIR was lodged at P.S. Batauli, District Surguja against the driver (respondent no. 3), and a challan was filed before the Learned J.M.F.C., Sitapur. The claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs. 12,52,000 for the loss of Lalit Yadav, aged about 25 years, who was earning Rs. 6,000 per month as a Khalasi. Respondents no. 3 and 4 remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal and did not file a written statement. The appellant Insurance Company contended that the claim was baseless, had no connection to the accident, and that the claimants resided in District Jashpur, making the jurisdiction of the District Court, Surguja invalid. 4 Furthermore, the driver lacked a valid driving license, and the vehicle lacked valid documents like fitness, permit, and registration certificate, absolving the Insurance Company of liability. After scrutiny, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- in favor of the claimants and held the Insurance Company liable for compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the liability imposed upon the insurer is wholly unlawful, as the vehicle in question lacked the mandatory fitness certificate, a prerequisite for lawful operation. In the absence of this essential certification, there is a clear breach of the insurance policy terms, and therefore, the tribunal ought to have attributed liability solely to the vehicle’s owner rather than the insurance company. Contrary to this, the tribunal erroneously and unjustifiably held the insurance company liable, a decision that is inherently illegal. Furthermore, although evidence was presented, the tribunal, in paragraph 13 of its award, incorrectly concluded that no relevant evidence had been produced to support the claim. The counsel also argues that the tribunal’s reliance on a particular precedent is misplaced, as the judgment cited has since been overruled, rendering the tribunal’s finding flawed and warranting its reversal. Additionally, it is submitted that the investigator, who has been duly examined, submitted a document clearly establishing that 5 the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate at the relevant time, further reinforcing the insurer’s stance that liability cannot be fastened upon it. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the owner contends that the issue of the vehicle’s fitness, which is being challenged by the insurance company, has not been adequately established or proven before the tribunal. It is further emphasized that no competent official or authorized representative from the Regional Transport Office (RTO), particularly the individual responsible for issuing the fitness certificate at the relevant time, has been examined or called upon to provide evidence demonstrating that the vehicle in question lacked a valid fitness certificate. Consequently, the absence of testimony or documentation from the appropriate authority undermines the insurance company’s claim, leaving the question of the vehicle’s fitness certificate validity unsubstantiated. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. From a careful and thorough examination of the record, it is evident that the tribunal has failed to present the requisite evidence from the relevant Regional Transport Office (RTO) to substantiate the claim of the vehicle’s non-fitness. Consequently, as noted in paragraph 13 of the tribunal’s findings, the absence of such critical evidence—specifically pertaining to the vehicle’s 6 fitness status—has been duly acknowledged. It is a well- established principle that the burden of proof lies squarely on the party making an allegation, and in the present matter, the insurance company, which has raised the contention of the vehicle’s non-fitness, has not discharged this burden by providing concrete and convincing evidence. Therefore, in light of the insurance company’s failure to prove the non-fitness of the vehicle, the plea predicated on this ground cannot be accepted or given any credence by the tribunal. 8. With regard to the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Augustine versus Ayyappan Kutty, reported in 2015 (2) T.A.C. 768, it holds significant relevance to the present matter. This decision is particularly material to the case at hand because there has been a failure to produce any evidence concerning the fitness or roadworthiness of the vehicle involved. The absence of such crucial evidence directly impacts the evaluation of liability and the overall determination of the case, making the precedent established in Augustine vs. Ayyappan Kutty a pivotal reference point for the adjudication of the issues before the court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company lacks substantive merit and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 7 Cross-objection/Appeal 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 37,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 37,800/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,80,400/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- in favour of the parents of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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. 8 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for appellant/insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 opposes the same. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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, nor a Bonanza. 16. 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. 17. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding 9 income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 28,800/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,00,800/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 50,400/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 50,400/-. In view of judgment 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 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,07,200/-. The claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three 10 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/respondents No. 1 & 2 are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,39,200/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,07,200/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). Rs. 96,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 10,39,200/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,39,200/-. After deducting Rs. 7,10,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,28,800/-. 11 20. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,28,800/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced 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 Raghu Jat