1 2025:CGHC:53987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1244 of 2018 1 - Smt. Seema Devi Paswan W/o Late Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Haider Nagar, Bhai Bigha District Palamu Jharkhand, District : Palamu, Jharkhand 2 - Minor Khushboo Paswan D/o Late Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 5 Years Minor, Legal Guardian Through Seema Devi Paswan W/o Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 23 Years , R/o Village Haider Nagar, Bhai Bigha District Palamu Jharkhand, District : Palamu, Jharkhand 3 – Minor Ankit Kumar Late Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 3 Years Minor, Legal Guardian Through Seema Devi Pawan W/o Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 23 Years , R/o Village Haider Nagar, Bhai Bigha District Palamu Jharkhand 4 – Minor Munna S/o Late Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 2 Years Minor, Legal Guardian Through Seema Devi Pawan W/o Dhananjai Paswan Aged About 23 Years , R/o Village Haider Nagar, Bhai Bigha District Palamu Jharkhand. 5 - Smt. Pyari Devi W/o Late Krishna Paswan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Haider Nagar, Bhai Bigha District Palamu Jharkhand, District : Palamu, Jharkhand --- Appellants Versus 1 - Rakesh Nanwar S/o Soren Nanwar Aged About 22 Years Police Station Rajgangapur District Sundargarh, Odisha 2 - Chalti Singh S/o Sureshdev Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Chatamuda, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.06 19:22:58 +0530 2 3 - Manager, United India Insurance Company, Rajgangapur , Through Branch Raigarh Branch Opposite Gopi Talkies, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhagirathi Singh Dhimrapur Chowk Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Limited , Satigudi Chowk, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 425 of 2018 Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Seema Deve Paswan Wd/o Late Dhananjay Paswan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 2 - Minor Ku. Khusboo Paswan D/o Late Dhananjay Paswan Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Devi Paswan Wd/o Dhananjay Paswan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 3 - Minor Ankit Kumar S/o Late Dhananjay Paswan Aged About 3 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Devi Paswan Wd/o Dhananjay Paswan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 4 - Minor Munna S/o Late Dhananjay Aged About 02 Months, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Devi Paswan Wd/o Dhananjay Paswan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 5 - Smt. Pyari Devi Wd/o Krishna Paswan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 6 - Rakesh Nanwar S/o Soren Nanwar Aged About 22 Years Police Station Rajgangapur, District Sundargarh (Orissa) 7 - Chalti Singh S/o Sureshdev Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Chhatamura Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 8 - Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajgangapur, Branch Through Raigarh Branch, In Front Of Gopi Talkies, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Bhagirathi Singh Dhimrapur Chowk Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Claimants : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For New India Assurance Company Limited : Mr. Qamarul Aziz, Advocate For United India Insurance Company Limited : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 04.11.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.02/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 3. MAC No.1244/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation whereas MAC No.425/2018 has been filed by the New India Ansurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation as also breach of policy conditions. 4 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 25.08.2014, the deceased, Dhananjay Paswan i.e. husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimants No. 2 to 4, and son of claimant No. 5, was going to Donga Mahua Coal Mine to collect coal from Jindal Power and Steel Company, Raigarh, in his trailer vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13-D-5535. On the way from Gharghoda to Raigarh, the driver of the truck bearing registration No. CG-13-A- 4955 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. 5. The claimants being widow, children and mother of the deceased filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Due to his untimely death, they suffered irreparable loss and claimed compensation of Rs.49,88,000/- under various heads. 6. Non-applicant No. 3, United India Insurance Company Limited, in its written statement, denied the claim and contended that the deceased’s monthly income was not Rs.18,000/-, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, and the accident did not occur due to the fault of non-applicant No. 1. It was further alleged that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, that he was not employed, and that the claimants were not dependent upon him. It was also stated that non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid driving license and, therefore, non- 5 applicant No. 3 was not liable to pay compensation. The insurer further submitted that the accident was a result of a head-on collision between two vehicles, and the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated. 7. Non-applicant No. 4, in his reply, denied all the material facts stated in the claim application. 8. Non-applicant No. 5, New India Assurance Company Limited, also filed its written statement contending that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. It was further stated that his income was not Rs.18,000/- per month and that non-applicant No. 4 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. Therefore, non-applicant No. 5 disclaimed liability to pay any compensation and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 9. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.7,58,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 both the insurance company i.e. non- applicant No.3 and 5 therein. 6 10. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore warrants interference by this Court. It is respectfully submitted that the compensation awarded is not commensurate with the evidence on record and the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been argued that the Claims Tribunal has also failed to not awarding any amount towards future prospects in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1, has held that an amount under conventional heads should be increased by 10% every three years to keep pace with inflation. The learned Claims Tribunal, however, overlooked this well-settled principle and awarded amounts under conventional heads without applying the mandated escalation. As such, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 11. Mr. Qamarul Aziz, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the claimants and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law while holding the accident to be contributory negligence which is contrary to the finding arrived at 7 by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has held in para 12 of the impugned award that it was non-applicant No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and further in para 15, the Claims Tribunal has held that both the vehicles i.e. the trailer bearing No.CG-13-D-5535 and offending vehicle were negligent in driving the vehicles and as such, both the vehicles held to be liable for contributory negligence, which is contrary to the evidence adduced before the Court. He further submits that New India Insurance Company Limited is insurer of the trailer and the Claims Tribunal already recorded a finding that the trailer was hit by the offending vehicle, as such, there could not be composite negligence of both the vehicles and it can only be composite negligence of the offending vehicle. 12. Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited has submitted that both the vehicles, i.e. the offending vehicle and the trailer were rightly held liable for the contributory negligence, as such Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. 13. However, upon query, learned counsel of the offending vehicle has not disputed this fact that the Claims Tribunal has given its finding in para 12 that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner, due to which accident occurred and deceased Dhananjay Paswan died. 8 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 15. First, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.425/2018. 16. A close examination of paragraphs 12 to 15 of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents produced by the claimant party, observed that as per Exhibit A-2, the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the criminal case registered against non-applicant No. 1, the accident occurred on 25.08.2014 near 18 Nala Bridge, when the offending vehicle coming from Urdana Raigarh Gharghoda towards Raigarh, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the offending vehicle. As a result of the said collision, the deceased Dhananjay Paswan succumbed to his injuries while being taken to the hospital for treatment. 17. The Claims Tribunal further recorded that the best witness to the accident was the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., non-applicant No. 1. However, non-applicant No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal to adduce any evidence in his defence. In such circumstances, the Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the version put forth by the claimants and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending 9 vehicle by non-applicant No. 1, which resulted in the death of the deceased. 18. It was further noticed that no evidence had been adduced by non- applicants No. 1 and 2 regarding any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per Exhibit A-5, the offending vehicle was duly insured from 10.12.2015 to 15.12.2030, which covered the date of the accident. Similarly, the trailer bearing registration No.CG-13-D-5535 was insured from 25.03.2005 to 22.05.2015, also covering the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that it was not proved that non- applicants No. 1 and 2 had violated any terms or conditions of the insurance policy while driving the vehicle in question. 19. The Tribunal also dealt with the objection raised by the non- applicants regarding the maintainability of the claim petition and found that no evidence was produced by them in support of such objection. It was observed that the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of the City Kotwali Police Station, Raigarh district; therefore, the claim petition was maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further held that on the date of the accident, the trailer was insured with non-applicant No. 3, whereas the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 5. Considering the contents of Clause 19 of the claim petition and the FIR (Exhibit A-2), which disclosed that the deceased’s truck was proceeding towards the mines and the offending vehicle was 10 coming from the opposite direction towards Raigarh, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of both vehicles. Consequently, non-applicants No. 3 and 5 were held jointly and equally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 20. A close and careful perusal of the material on record and the reasons given in the impugned award discloses that the Claims Tribunal committed an error of law and of fact in holding that the trailer bearing registration No. CG-13-D-5535 was an offending vehicle and in characterising the accident as one of composite or contributory negligence for which both insurers should be held jointly and equally liable. 21. On the evidence, the following findings emerge clearly: (i) The accident occurred on 25.08.2014 near 18 Nala Bridge when the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13-A- 4955 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the trailer bearing registration No. CG-13-D- 5535 belonging to the deceased, Dhananjay Paswan. This narrative is reflected in the FIR (Exhibit A-2) and the contemporaneous material placed on record by the claimants. (ii) The driver of the offending vehicle (non-applicant No. 1) was the best and most direct witness to the circumstances of the collision. That witness did not appear to give evidence 11 before the Tribunal. The absence of the driver’s testimony did not, however, justify the Tribunal in recording a finding that an altogether different vehicle (trailer No. CG-13-D- 5535) was an offending vehicle without satisfactory evidentiary support. (iii) The claimants failed to establish by admissible and reliable evidence that trailer No. CG-13-D-5535 struck or in any manner contributed to the death of the deceased. Nowhere in the record is there material cogent enough to re-characterise the accident as a composite collision involving the trailer CG-13-D-5535 as an offending vehicle. The Tribunal’s conclusion to the contrary was therefore a result of misappreciation of the evidence. (iv) No satisfactory evidence was adduced by non- applicants No. 1 and 2 to prove any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which would disentitle their insurers; the seizure/insurance documents on record do not establish a defence which would fasten liability upon non-applicant No. 5. (v) The record shows that on the date of the accident the offending vehicle CG-13-A-4955 was insured with non- applicant No. 3 (United India Insurance Company). The mere fact that the deceased’s vehicle CG-13-D-5535 was insured with non-applicant No. 5 (New India Assurance 12 Company Limited) does not, in the absence of proof that that vehicle or its driver contributed to the occurrence, render non-applicant No. 5 liable to indemnify the award. 22. For these reasons the Tribunal’s finding of “composite negligence” and its consequent order holding non-applicants No. 3 and 5 jointly and equally liable cannot be sustained. The impugned conclusion involved a material misreading of the evidence and an impermissible extension of liability to non-applicant No. 5 without proof. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited (non-applicant No. 5) is allowed on the following terms: (I) The portion of the impugned award which holds non- applicant No. 5 jointly and equally liable to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside. (ii) Non-applicant No. 5 (New India Assurance Company Limited) is hereby exonerated from the obligation to indemnify or satisfy the award made against the insured of non-applicant No. 5 in respect of the occurrence of 25.08.2014. (iii) Liability for the accident, on the material placed before this Court, is confined to the offending vehicle CG-13-A- 4955 and its insurer, non-applicant No. 3 (United India Insurance Company). The claimants, if so advised, may pursue recovery from non-applicant No. 3 in accordance 13 with law; the Tribunal’s order will stand modified to that extent. 24. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1244/2018. 25. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.18,000/- per month by working as Driver, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 25.08.2014 therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.5,910/- per month. 26. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.5,910/- per month, i.e. Rs.70,920/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects (Rs.28,368/-), which comes to Rs.99,288/- per annum. After 14 deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses (Rs.24,822/-), annual income of deceased comes to Rs.74,466/-. After applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.12,65,922/-. 27. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 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 Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 28. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 15 Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.5,910/- per month Rs.70,920/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 70,920 + 28,368 = Rs.99,288 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 99,288 / 4 = 24,822 = Rs.74,466/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 17 applied 74,466 x 17 Rs.12,65,922/- 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 five claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.2,40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.15,41,922/- 29. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.15,41,922/-. After deducting Rs.7,58,500/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.7,83,422/-. 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1244/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is 16 modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,83,422/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 31. Accordingly, the appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited being MAC No.425/2018 stands allowed. The finding of the learned Claims Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both the vehicles, and consequently fastening joint and equal liability upon non- applicants No. 3 and 5, is hereby set aside. 32. It is held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13-A-4955 insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (non-applicant No. 3). Therefore, non-applicant No. 5 – New India Assurance Company Limited is exonerated from liability to indemnify or satisfy the award. 33. The amount, if any, deposited by New India Assurance Company Limited shall be refunded to it upon due verification and compliance with requisite formalities. The award shall stand modified accordingly. 34. The United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation along with enhanced amount 17 of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 35. Let the record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh