1 2025:CGHC:61689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 250 of 2017 1 - Dilip Agarwal S/o Ramji Agarwal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Gopalpur, P.S. And Tehsil Himgir District Sundargarh Orissa Presently R/o Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Rajshri Agarwal W/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Nayaganj Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sakshi Agarwal D/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Jaiswal, R/o Nayaganj Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Khushi Agarwal D/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Jaiswal, R/o Nayaganj Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Harsh Agarwal S/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Jaiswal, R/o Nayaganj Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocates For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate MAC No. 732 of 2017 1 - Smt. Rajshri Agarwal W/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Nayaganj, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sakshi Agarwal D/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Agrawal, R/o Nayaganj, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Khushi Agarwal D/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Agrawal, R/o Nayaganj, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Harish Agarwal S/o Late Shri Anand Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshi Agrawal, R/o Nayaganj, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Dilip Agarwal S/o Ramji Agrawal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Gopalpur, P.S. And Tahsil Himgir, District Sundargarh Orissa Presently R/o Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate 3 For Respondent : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocates Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 384/2011. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeals, are that on 29.11.2009 at about 6:00 p.m., the deceased Anand Agarwal was allegedly taken in Alto Car bearing registration No. OR-14-M- 7900 from near Gopi Talkies / Ajay Restaurant. As per the specific case pleaded by the claimants themselves, while the car was in motion, the deceased was assaulted inside the vehicle with an iron rod by the owner of the vehicle and one co-accused. It was further pleaded that due to the injuries so inflicted inside the moving car, the deceased died and thereafter his dead body was thrown in an agricultural field. Thus, according to the claimants, the death was not the result of a road accident or collision, but was the outcome of a homicidal act committed inside the vehicle during its use. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was lodged, and offences under Sections 302, 365, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC were registered against the owner of 4 the vehicle and the co-accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the accused persons were tried by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the owner of the vehicle was convicted by the Trial Court; however, in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013, this Court acquitted him from all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the theory of last seen together. 3. Parallelly, the wife and minor children of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal, asserting that the death of Anand Agarwal occurred during the use of the motor vehicle and therefore amounted to an accidental death / accidental murder. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 34 years, was running a crusher and a footwear shop, and was earning approximately Rs. 12,000/- per month. Claiming to be wholly dependent upon the deceased, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 25,98,000/- under various heads. The owner of the vehicle, while filing his written statement, denied the allegations in toto. He specifically denied that the deceased was travelling with him in the said vehicle on the relevant date or that the vehicle was involved in any manner in causing the death. A categorical objection was also raised regarding the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that negligence of the driver and death arising out of the use of the motor vehicle are sine qua non for invoking Section 166, whereas, as per the claimants’ own case, the incident was a case of simpliciter murder. 5 To substantiate their case, the claimants examined themselves and other witnesses and relied upon documents of the criminal case, including FIR, seizure memo, post-mortem report and charge-sheet. The owner of the vehicle examined himself and relied upon the judgment of acquittal passed by this Court. Issues Framed by the Claims Tribunal 4. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: (A) Whether on 29.11.2009, the respondent/owner was driving the Alto Car bearing Registration No. OR-14-M-7900 in a rash and negligent manner, and due to such negligence, Anand Agarwal died? (B) Whether the murder was committed during the use of the car, and whether such murder amounts to an accidental murder? Finding: Yes. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount? Relief and costs. Outcome Before the Tribunal 5. The learned Tribunal, despite recording a clear finding that there was no rash or negligent driving and that the death was not caused due to negligent use of the vehicle, held that since the murder was committed during the use of the car, it amounted to an accidental murder falling within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles 6 Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2000 SC 1930), the Tribunal held the claim petition to be maintainable and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,64,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the owner has filed an appeal challenging the maintainability and liability, whereas the claimants have filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and interest. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant (in M.A.C. No. 250/2017) / owner of the offending vehicle (respondent in M.A.C. No. 732/2017) submits that the impugned award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Tribunal has completely misconstrued the pleadings, evidence on record and the settled legal position governing claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rita Devi (Supra), as the facts of the present case do not satisfy the parameters laid down therein. There is absolutely no material on record to establish that the death of the deceased arose out of the use of the motor vehicle or that the alleged murder was incidental or accidental in nature. On the contrary, as per the specific pleadings of the claimants themselves, the deceased was intentionally assaulted with a jack rod inside the vehicle and thereafter murdered, which clearly establishes a case of 7 simpliciter murder and not an accidental murder. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is no causal nexus between the alleged use of the motor vehicle and the death of the deceased. The vehicle was neither the cause of death nor a contributing factor thereto. As per the claim petition as well as the oral evidence of the claimants, the cause of death was the deliberate assault inflicted by the appellant and the co- accused, and therefore the essential requirement of death “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” remains unfulfilled. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in ignoring the settled distinction between “murder simpliciter” and “accidental murder”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi (supra) has categorically held that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill a particular person, such killing cannot be termed as an accidental murder. In the present case, the FIR itself was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging kidnapping followed by murder, leading to registration of offences under Sections 302, 365, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. Thus, the intention to kill was clear and premeditated, and the incident cannot be brought within the ambit of an accident. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the appellant was prosecuted and subsequently acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013, wherein it was held that the prosecution failed to establish the theory of last seen together and the alleged murder. Despite such acquittal on 8 the same set of evidence and documents, the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the criminal case material to hold the appellant liable, which amounts to a grave illegality. 7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has itself recorded a categorical finding under Issue No. 1(A) that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is well settled that negligence of the driver is sine qua non for maintaining a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Having answered the issue of negligence in the negative, the Tribunal committed a manifest error in law in still holding the claim petition to be maintainable and fastening liability upon the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act permit adjudication only in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles. In the present case, as per the claimants’ own version, the incident is one of intentional murder and not an accident, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal itself was wrongly invoked. It is further submitted that even a claim under Section 163-A of the Act or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act would not be maintainable in a case of simpliciter murder. It is lastly contended that the compensation of Rs. 5,64,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly unsustainable and amounts to a bonanza for the claimants, particularly when the foundational requirements for maintaining the claim petition itself are absent. In view of the 9 aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T. No. 384/2011, and absolve the appellant from any liability to pay compensation, in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4 – claimants has filed cross objection to the appeal and has submitted that the impugned award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, suffers from serious infirmities insofar as the assessment of income, computation of compensation and award of conventional heads are concerned, and therefore calls for interference by this Court for enhancement of the compensation amount. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. The testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, which clearly established the age, avocation and income of the deceased, has not been duly considered, resulting in an erroneous and grossly inadequate assessment of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a meager sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was about 32–34 years of age and was carrying on the business of a stone crusher as well as running a footwear shop, from which he was earning approximately 10 Rs. 12,000/- per month. The said fact was duly pleaded and supported by evidence on record; however, the learned Tribunal failed to take the same into consideration, thereby causing serious prejudice to the claimants. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. In terms of the said judgment, where the deceased is below 40 years of age, an addition of 50% of the actual income towards future prospects is required to be made. Applying the said principle, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 18,000/- per month for the purpose of computing loss of dependency, which the learned Tribunal failed to do. Learned counsel also submits that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been wrongly taken at one-third by the learned Tribunal. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), where the number of dependents is four or more, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to be one-fourth and not one-third. The failure to apply the correct deduction has further resulted in underassessment of compensation. It is further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, 11 and therefore the award under this head deserves enhancement. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 20,000/- each to the children of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Juju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, the compensation awarded under this head is wholly inadequate and deserves to be suitably enhanced. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of only 7% per annum on the compensation amount. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and therefore the interest component also deserves enhancement. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has applied an incorrect multiplier of 16 for calculating loss of dependency, despite the deceased being below the age of 35 years. As per the settled principles under the Motor Vehicles Act and the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case ought to have been 17. The application of an incorrect multiplier has further resulted in reduction of just compensation payable to the claimants. It is lastly submitted that the overall assessment of compensation made by the learned Claims Tribunal is wholly 12 inadequate and does not reflect just and fair compensation as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 / claimants humbly prays that this Court may be pleased to enhance and suitably modify the impugned award dated 05.12.2016 passed in Claim Case No. 384/2011 by the learned Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in the interest of justice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeals. 10. It is not in dispute that on 29.11.2009, the deceased Anand Agarwal was travelling in Alto Car bearing Registration No. OR- 14-M-7900, owned by the appellant. It is also undisputed that Anand Agarwal died on the same night and his dead body was recovered subsequently from a field near village Binjkot. The post- mortem report describes the death as homicidal, caused by injuries inflicted by hard and blunt objects. 11. Rajshree Agarwal (PW-1), in her examination-in-chief, categorically stated that on the evening of the incident, her husband Anand Agarwal went with the appellant Dilip Agarwal in his Alto car and during the journey a dispute arose, whereupon the appellant assaulted Anand Agarwal with a jack rod kept in the car, causing his death inside the moving vehicle. Her testimony remained unshaken and was not contradicted in cross- examination. PW-1 further supported her oral testimony by producing certified copies of criminal case documents, including 13 the FIR, seizure memos, post-mortem report, memorandums of accused, and vehicle registration documents. None of these documents were disputed or rebutted by the appellant. 12. PW-2, Deepak Agarwal, corroborated the “last seen” circumstance by stating that on 29.11.2009 at around 6:00 p.m., he saw the deceased leaving with the appellant in the said Alto car. His testimony was also not effectively challenged in cross- examination. 13. The appellant examined himself as a witness. Significantly, he admitted that the Alto car bearing Registration No. OR-14-M-7900 belonged to him and that the said vehicle was seized by the police in connection with the murder case of Anand Agarwal. He further admitted that he was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court and later acquitted by this Court in criminal appeal. However, the appellant did not specifically deny the presence of the deceased in his car on the relevant date, nor did he adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was dropped alive at any other place. The appellant also failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants. 14. It is well settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not criminal proceedings and are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The outcome of a criminal trial, therefore, does not conclude the issue before the Claims Tribunal. 15. In Alok Sharma v. Santosh [2014 (2) ACC 555 (Chh)], it has 14 been held that even non-registration of FIR does not defeat a claim petition, and criminal case documents can be used for corroboration. The Tribunal rightly applied this principle. 16. The principal contention of the appellant is that the incident amounts to a simpliciter murder and not an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. This submission cannot be accepted. In Rita Devi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court drew a distinction between murder simpliciter and accidental murder, holding that if the dominant intention to kill is not established and the death occurs incidentally during the use of a motor vehicle, such death would fall within the ambit of an “accident”. In the present case, although the death is homicidal, there is no evidence on record to establish that the dominant intention of the appellant, at the time of taking the deceased in the car, was to murder him. On the contrary, the evidence shows prior acquaintance, voluntary travel, and absence of any proved motive. Thus, the death occurred during and in connection with the use of the motor vehicle and is reasonably proximate thereto. 17. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that rash and negligent driving was not proved. However, it has also correctly held that for a claim under Section 166, what is essential is that the death must arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. Negligence is not the sole test in cases where the death is incidental to the use of the vehicle. The interpretation of the expression “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” has consistently been given a wide 15 meaning by the Courts, keeping in view the beneficial object of the legislation (Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530). 18. The acquittal of the appellant in criminal proceedings does not absolve him of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has rightly held that criminal culpability and civil liability operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of proof. 19. From the uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence, it stands proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the deceased Anand Agarwal travelled in the appellant’s car on the date of the incident; Injuries were caused to him during the use of the said vehicle; The death occurred as a consequence of those injuries; The incident falls within the category of accidental murder arising out of the use of a motor vehicle as contemplated under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is dismissed. The finding of the Tribunal holding the claim petition to be maintainable and fastening liability upon the appellant is hereby affirmed. 21. The date of incident is 29.11.2009. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which, upon scrutiny, does not appear to be in consonance with the prevailing 16 statutory standards. In the absence of cogent documentary proof regarding exact income, the income of the deceased can safely be assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. As per the minimum wages notified for an unskilled worker for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010, the minimum monthly wages were Rs. 3,139/-.The learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was about 34 years of age at the time of death. As per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], an addition of 40% of the established income is required to be made where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. However, the record clearly establishes that the deceased left behind four dependents, namely, his wife and three children. As per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], where the number of dependents is four, the appropriate deduction is 1/4th and not 1/3rd. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. Considering the age of the deceased, the application of multiplier 16 is found to be correct and appropriate, and does not call for any interference. 22. The 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. (supra), the claimants are 17 further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. 23. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re-determines the compensation amounts as follows: Income 3,139 p.m. Annual Income 3,139 x 12 40% future Prospective (15,067/-) Personal Expenses(1/4) (13,183/-) Net Income Multiplier (x16) Loss of Income Rs. 37,668/- +15,067/- Rs. 52,735/- (-13,183) Rs. 39,552/- Rs. 6,32,832/- Loss of Consortirum @ Rs. 40,000/- per person (with an increase of 10% per 3 years) Rs.48,000/-x4 Rs. 1,92,000/- Funeral Expenses (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Estate (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 8,60,832/- 24. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,60,832/-. After deducting Rs. 5,64,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,96,832/-. 18 25. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,96,832/- 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. Thus, the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 / claimants is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to the extent indicated above. The rest of the findings of the learned Tribunal on quantum remain undisturbed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna