1 2025:CGHC:51791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1918 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.253 1st Floor Narsingh Ward Wevsite Gujar Hotel Nagpur Road Madanmahal Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh Through Assistant Manger Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor Simran Tower Opposite Lic Building Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rukhmani Verma W/o Om Prakash Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mudiya Post Mahara Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nitesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Omprakash Verma Aged About 15 Years Minor The Are Through Their Mother Smt. Rukhmani Verma W/o Omprakash Verma R/o Village Mudiya Post Mahara Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nomesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Omprakash Verma Aged About 12 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Rukhmani Verma W/o Omprakash Verma R/o Village Mudiya Post Mahara Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Doulat Verma S/o Late Shivram Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mudiya Post Mahara Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Panna Bai W/o Doulat Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Mudiya Post Mahara Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mohd. Jalil S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 34 Years R/o Mamta Nagar Street No. 1 Near Sanwri Masjid Adhartal Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 7 - Sumit Patel S/o Rajbhan Patel R/o Rajivnagar Cheriwala Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh ., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : None. For Respondent No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 4.8.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,16,800/- 3 with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was filed by the claimants—namely the wife, children, and parents of the deceased Omprakash—seeking compensation for his death in a motor accident. According to the claimants, on 21.11.2017, while the deceased was traveling to his village, Mudiya, near Bajrang Temple, village Dundero, the driver of truck no. MP 20 GA 9787 drove rashly and negligently, colliding with the motorcycle driven by the deceased, who sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants stated that the deceased was approximately 39 years old and engaged in agriculture using advanced equipment, earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum from paddy cultivation and Rs. 15,000/- per month from vegetable farming, upon which the claimants were dependent. Consequently, they sought compensation of Rs. 1,18,87,500/- on various grounds. The appellant filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the tribunal to contest the case on all available grounds as the owner and driver of the vehicle. The non-applicant parties 1 and 2 jointly filed a written statement denying all adverse allegations, including the negligence of the driver. The appellant contested 4 the claim application, arguing that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, constituting a willful violation of the insurance policy terms and conditions. Furthermore, the insured vehicle was operated in a public place without a valid permit, violating both the policy and the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby absolving the appellant of liability to pay compensation. It was also contended that the claimant failed to include the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties, warranting dismissal of the claim. Despite the evidence and testimony, the tribunal found the driver of the insured truck solely negligent because a criminal case had been registered against him, ignoring the driver’s testimony that he was driving at a moderate speed and the deceased was driving rashly. The tribunal deducted one-fifth towards personal expenses, considered five claimants, awarded 50% future prospects, and granted Rs. 1,75,000/- compensation, decisions which are contrary to established Supreme Court precedents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order/award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous both on facts and law. The Tribunal committed a grave illegality by attributing sole negligence to the driver of the insured vehicle merely on the basis of a criminal case registered against him, without duly considering the driver's evidence that the deceased 5 was rashly and negligently driving the motorcycle and collided with the truck, especially when the claimant failed to examine any eye witness to dispute this. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that it is the claimant's duty to plead and prove the negligence of the driver with reliable and cogent evidence, and in the absence of such proof, the claim under Section 166 is not maintainable, warranting dismissal. Further, the mere registration of an offence does not ipso facto establish negligence. The Tribunal also erred in holding that the deceased’s father, who owns agricultural land and income, was wholly dependent on the deceased without any basis, especially as it found that the deceased was not the only son of the claimant; thus, a deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses is appropriate instead of one-fifth, in line with Sarla Verma. The principles laid down in Pranay Sethi are not applicable since the deceased was neither a salaried nor self- employed person but earned from agriculture, with land still in possession of the claimants, and the future prospects should be limited to 40%. The award of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards conventional heads is also excessive and contrary to Pranay Sethi, as claimants are entitled to only Rs. 70,000/- under this head. The appellant reserves the right to raise further grounds during the proceedings. 4. None for respondents No. 1 to 5. 6 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7 opposes the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having carefully considered the facts and submissions, the claimants have established a prima facie case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, demonstrating that the deceased Omprakash tragically lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured truck, as corroborated by the registered criminal case and the circumstances of the accident. The insurance company’s contention regarding the absence of a valid driving license and permit, while noted, does not absolve it of liability in light of the established principle of compensating the victim’s dependents for their loss. The Tribunal rightly attributed sole negligence to the truck driver based on the preponderance of evidence and correctly awarded compensation reflecting the deceased’s income from agricultural activities, future prospects, and conventional heads in accordance with Supreme Court precedents. The appellant’s challenge to the deductions and the quantum of compensation fails to appreciate the nuanced dependency of the claimants and the impact of the loss on their livelihood. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the Tribunal’s award, 7 and the appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed in the interest of justice and equity. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat