1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 700 of 2017 1 - Rajesh Upadhyay S/o Raghuvir Prasad Upadhyay, Aged About 33 Years R/o Old Kachaharipara, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Applicant No.2/ Owner Of The Offending Vehicle C.G.9 D 3508, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Durga Bai Wd/o Shiv Kumar Jhariya, Aged About 24 Years R/o Mathpara Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Payal D/o Late Shiv Kumar Jhariya, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Namely Durga Bai Jhariya Wd/o Shiv Kumar Jhariya, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mathpara Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Bahalram S/o Late Kejau Ram Jhariya, Aged About 60 Years R/o Mathpara Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Mongra Bai W/o Bahal Ram Jhariya, Aged About 55 Years R/o Mathpara Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Heera Singh Chouhan S/o Ganga Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years R/o Mathpara, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.1, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Beside L I C Office, Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon, District Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Applicant No.3, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 81/2014 seeking quashment of the aforesaid impugned award. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellant, are that the claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of deceased Shiv Kumar Jhariya, who preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on account of his death, which allegedly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by respondent No. 5. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. It was specifically pleaded by the claimants that on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/09D/3508, which was being driven by respondent No. 5, namely Heera Singh 3 Chouhan. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. It was also averred that the said motorcycle was duly insured with respondent No. 6, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the date of the accident. That according to the case of the claimants, on 30.01.2010 at about 9:00 a.m., respondent No. 5 along with deceased Shiv Kumar Jhariya went to visit Donganiya Mela on the aforesaid motorcycle. While returning from the fair, respondent No. 5 allegedly drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a cyclist near the house of Bihari Satnami at village Harinchhapra. As a result of the collision, the motorcycle and the cycle fell down, causing grievous injuries to the deceased, who became unconscious. That the accident was reported to Police Station Kawardha, and the injured Shiv Kumar Jhariya was initially admitted to District Hospital, Kabirdham, from where he was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. During the course of treatment, Shiv Kumar Jhariya succumbed to his injuries on 31.01.2010. Consequently, an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and respondent No. 5, and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). During the proceedings before the learned Claims Tribunal, respondent No. 5 filed his written statement denying the allegations made by 4 the claimants. He contended that the motorcycle was in fact being driven by the deceased Shiv Kumar Jhariya himself, while respondent No. 5 and one Vijendra Sinha were pillion riders. It was pleaded that due to the glare of light from a heavy vehicle, the deceased could not notice the cyclist and dashed against him, resulting in the accident. On this basis, respondent No. 5 claimed that he was not liable to pay any compensation and that the liability, if any, was upon the insurance company. Respondent No. 6/Insurance Company also filed its written statement and contended that its liability, if any, was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that there was a breach of policy conditions, as the person driving the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the motorcycle was being ridden with more than one pillion rider. On these grounds, the insurance company denied its liability to indemnify the insured or to pay compensation to the claimants. That the learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues for adjudication and, after recording evidence of the parties, exonerated the insurance company from liability on the ground of breach of policy conditions. The learned Tribunal, however, held the registered owner and respondent No. 5 liable and, by the impugned award, granted compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the claimants. The appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record, having been 5 passed without proper appreciation of the facts, evidence and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has given rise to the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is illegal, erroneous, unjustified and contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has mechanically fastened liability upon the appellant, which renders the impugned award unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant and respondent No. 5 liable to pay compensation without proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider that respondent No. 5, in his categorical testimony, has stated that at the time of the accident the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle. Despite such clear evidence, the learned Tribunal ignored the same and wrongly attributed negligence and liability to respondent No. 5 and the appellant, thereby passing an award which is perverse and contrary to the record. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in calculating the compensation by making an incorrect deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal deducted only one-fifth of the income on the ground that there were four dependents, whereas in fact respondent No. 2 was a minor and 6 the parents of the deceased were also claimants. In such circumstances, the appropriate deduction ought to have been one-third, and the failure to do so has resulted in an excessive and inflated award, liable to be modified or set aside. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal further erred in not appreciating the appellant’s specific case that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, which materially affects the question of liability and vitiates the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that there is no documentary evidence produced by the insurance company to establish that the offending vehicle was not duly insured on the date of the accident. Despite the absence of any cogent material, the learned Tribunal, without any legal basis, proceeded to pass the impugned award, which is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and is not supported by reliable evidence. The claimants failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the age of the deceased, yet the Tribunal applied a multiplier without proper justification, resulting in an erroneous computation of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is duty bound to adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any 7 extraneous considerations. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has failed to properly scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence on record, ignored the defence of the appellant, and passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. It is lastly submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse, unreasonable and unjustified on the face of the evidence available on record. The impugned award suffers from apparent errors and is against the well-settled principles of law governing motor accident claims. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned award dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 81/2014 is liable to be set aside, discharging the appellant from the alleged liability, in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. So far as the contention of the appellant that the 8 deceased himself was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the said plea and, on appreciation of the evidence as a whole, has rightly rejected the same. The finding of liability fastened upon the registered owner and the driver does not call for any interference. Similarly, the exoneration of the insurance company on account of breach of policy conditions has attained finality and has not been shown to be contrary to law. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has broadly assessed the compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law. However, with regard to deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it appears that the Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/5th. 7. Considering the fact that there are four claimants, the settled legal position is that the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd and not 1/5th. Therefore, to the limited extent of correcting the deduction towards personal expenses, the impugned award deserves modification. Except for the said correction, this Court does not find any other ground to interfere with the findings or conclusions recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re-determines the compensation amounts as follows: 9 Income 3,000 p.m. Annual Income 3,000 x 12 Personal Expenses(1/3) (12,000/-) Net Income Multiplier (x17) Loss of Income Rs. 36,000/- -12,000/- Rs. 24,000/- Rs. 4,08,000/- Loss of Income as calculated by Tribunal Rs. 4,89,600/- Difference Rs. 81,600/- 9. Upon recalculation, it is evident that the loss of income, as recomputed by this Court after applying the correct deduction, comes to Rs. 4,08,000/-, whereas the loss of income as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal was Rs. 4,89,600/-. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 5,00,000/-, which includes an amount of Rs. 10,400/- under other conventional heads. Accordingly, after substituting the revised figure of loss of income, the total compensation payable to the claimants now comes to Rs. 4,18,400/- (Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 10,400). 10. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 4,18,400/-. The award is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE