1 2025:CGHC:49772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2088 of 2024 1 - Madangiri S/o Late Paras Giri Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Rangitola, Post Chichola, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Puneshwar Giri S/o Madan Giri Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Rangitola, Post Chichola, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ashish Yadav S/o Bisauha Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Baputola, Post Chichola, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- T-8, 4th Floor, Galwani Chamber, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil/ District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : None, even in the second round. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate, with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, in Claim Case No.152/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 14,02,184.00 with interest @ 8 % from the date of claim application. 2. Mr. Arvind Prasad would submit that on 09.03.2022, the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-08-AQ-4777 was being driven by one Trilok and the deceased Ishwar Giri was a pillion rider. The motor bike was dashed with the road side electric pole. Ishwar Giri fell down from the bike and sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, he died. 3. He would further argue that at the time of accident, age of the deceased (Ishwar Giri) was 30 years and he was earning Rs. 700 per day and he was only earning member of the family. He would contend that the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000.00 but the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation at lower side. He would contend that 3 the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.9,280/- per month, whereas, the deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. He would contend that the witnesses have categorically proved the income of the deceased. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- only towards loss of consortium, whereas number of dependents are 03. He would pray to modify the award accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Kaur would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submit that just and proper compensation has been granted by the learned tribunal. She would argue that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading clinching evidence. It is argued that in absence of documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal rightly assessed income of the deceased according to the minimum wages matrix. She would contend that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants could not adduced any documentary evidence to establish fixed income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages matrix payable to unskilled labourer. 4 7. In the instant case, the deceased was working as a cook and was earning Rs.600 per day, thus he was semi skilled labourer. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages payable to semi-skilled labourers. The minimum wages payable to semi-skilled labourers in the month of March 2022 was Rs.9,930/- per month, hence, the notional income of the deceased requires reconsideration. Further, the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 & 2. 8. Considering the above discussed facts, the computation of compensation is revisited as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this COurt 1. Income Rs. 9,280 x12 = Rs. 1,11,360/- Rs. 9,930 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,160/- 2. Future Prospect 40 % of Rs. 1,11,360/- = 44,544 + 1,11,360 = Rs.1,55,904 /- 47,664/-+1,19,160= Rs. 1,66,824/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 = Rs. 77,952/- (-) ½ = 83,412 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 13,25,184/- (x) 17 = Rs. 14,18,004/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 + (10 %) =16,500 15,000 + (10 %) =16,500 6. Funeral expenses 15,000 + (10 %) =16,500 15,000 + (10 %) =16,500 5 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- + (10 %) = 44,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- (appellants No.1 & 2) 8. TOTAL Rs. 14,02,184/- Rs. 15,39,004/- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the appellants is assessed at Rs.15,39,004/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand and Four only). After deducting the amount of Rs.14,02,184/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal, the enhanced amount payable to the appellants comes to Rs.1,36,820/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty only), which shall be paid by the Insurance company along with interest @ 6 % per annum. 10.In the present case, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650, has held that onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. The relevant para 6 is reproduced as under :- “6. As per the decision in Swaran Singh case (2004) 3 SCC 297, onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid 6 driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, "pay and recover" can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider "as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver... does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case". 12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the burden was on Insurance Company to prove the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, "pay and recover" can be ordered in case of third-party risks. 13.Since the deceased was a pillion rider, therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award first and shall be entitled to recover the award amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 14.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim