1 2025:CGHC:61935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1697 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Division No.1, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurance Company Of Vehicle Trailor No. C.G.05 A 5413, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Neetu Pal W/o Pramod Kumar Pal, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala Thana Ahirwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shweta D/o Pramod Kumar Pal, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Neetu Pal, R/o Village Malpuri Kala Thana Ahirwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Fekram Pal S/o Sunhar Pal, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala Thana Ahirwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Katipal W/o Fekram Pal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala Thana Ahirwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Baljindar Sing S/o Jarnail Singh, Resident House Number C.H. 543 Tatibandh Raipur Thana Aamanaka, District Raipur, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Vehicle Trailor No. C.G.05 A 5413, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Narindar Kaur W/o Baljindar Sing, Resident House Number C.H. 543 Tatibandh Raipur Thana Aamanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Possession Holder Of Vehicle Trailor No. C.G.05 A 5413, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rashmit Sing S/o Dalvindar Sing, Through Dev Trailor Service Ring Road No.2 Tatibandh, Thana Aamanaka Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Registered Owner Of Vehicle Trailor No. C.G.05 A 5413, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate MAC No. 1615 of 2017 1 - Smt. Neetu Pal W/o Pramod Kumar Pal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala, Thana Ahirvara, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Sweta, D/o Pramod Kumar Pal Aged About 5 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala, Thana Ahirvara, District Durg Chhattisgarh Minor Applicant No. Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Neetu Pal Applicant No. 1 , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Fekuram Pal S/o Sunhar Pal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala, Thana Ahirvara, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Katipal W/o Katipal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Malpuri Kala, Thana Ahirvara, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants 3 Versus 1 - Baljindar Singh S/o Jarnall Singh R/o House No. C H -543 Tatibandh Raipur Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Non Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 05 A 5413 , Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Narindar Kaur, W/o Baljindar Singh, R/o House No. C H -543 Tatibandh Raipur Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Non Applicant No. 1/ Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 05 A 5413 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rashmit Singh, S/o Dalvindar Singh Through Dev Trailer Service Ring Road No. 2, Tatibandh Raipur Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Non Applicant No. 1/ Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 05 A 5413 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Division No. 1 , The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Non Applicant No. 1/ Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G 05 A 5413, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 27.07.2017 passed by the learned Sixth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur 4 (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 236/2011. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeals, are that The present cross appeals arise out of the same motor vehicular accident which occurred on 10.06.2010 at about 8:50 p.m. near Village Baroda, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.). The accident involved a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.04/FD/5318, which was being driven by the deceased Pramod Kumar, and a Trailer/Truck bearing registration No. C.G.05/A/5413. As per the case of the claimants, the offending Trailer No. C.G.05/A/5413 was parked negligently in the middle of the road, without switching on parking lights or taking necessary safety precautions. Due to such negligent parking, the motorcycle driven by Pramod Kumar collided with the stationary trailer, resulting in grievous injuries to Pramod Kumar and another person, Tilak Raj. Pramod Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, while Tilak Raj survived with injuries. On the other hand, the case put forth by the appellant–Insurance Company and the owner/driver of the trailer is that the deceased Pramod Kumar himself was negligent, as he dashed the motorcycle from the rear side into the stationary trailer. It is contended that the trailer was properly parked on the side of the road and that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. It is further alleged that the deceased and the pillion rider were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. It is also pleaded 5 that at the time of the accident, the offending trailer was in the possession of respondent No. 6, Smt. Narindar Kaur, and not the insured owner named in the insurance policy. According to the Insurance Company, the policy for Trailer No. C.G.05/A/5413 was issued in the name of Dalvinder Singh, who was not impleaded as a party in the claim petition, and therefore, the insurer disputes its liability to indemnify the alleged possessor of the vehicle. Another defence raised by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending trailer, respondent No. 5 Baljindar Singh, was allegedly driving the vehicle on the basis of a fake driving licence at the time of the accident. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the Commissioner’s report dated 14.12.2016, which indicates that the relevant driving licence number was not traceable in the official register of the RTO, Raipur. It is also pointed out that though the licence was later renewed, the original licence itself was not proved to be genuine. Further, it is the case of the Insurance Company that since the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. C.G.04/FD/5318 were necessary parties, and in their absence, the claim petition was not maintainable. It is contended that non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle vitiates the proceedings. With regard to income, serious dispute has been raised by the Insurance Company challenging the documents relied upon by the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal wrongly 6 assessed the annual income of the deceased on the basis of income tax returns filed after the death of Pramod Kumar, allegedly signed by his widow, as well as other returns bearing signatures of unknown persons for earlier assessment years. According to the appellant, such documents are not legally admissible for determination of income, in view of settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court. On the contrary, in the cross appeal filed by the claimants/employer, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has undervalued the compensation, despite clear evidence that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the trailer in the middle of the road, without any warning signal or parking lights, which directly led to the fatal collision. It is asserted that the finding of negligence against the trailer driver is justified and that the compensation awarded is inadequate and calls for enhancement. Thus, both the appeals emanate from the same accident and the same award, one assailing the finding on negligence, liability, validity of driving licence and assessment of income, and the other seeking enhancement of compensation. The core controversy revolves around the manner of occurrence of the accident, contributory negligence, liability of the insurer, validity of the driving licence, and correct assessment of income and compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (in M.A.C. No. 1697/2017) / Insurance Company submits that the impugned award fastening 7 liability upon the insurer is wholly illegal, erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that no insurance policy was ever issued in the name of Rashmit Singh, who is shown as the registered owner of the offending Trailer/Truck bearing No. C.G.05/A/5413. In the absence of a valid policy in the name of the registered owner, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify any alleged liability arising out of the accident. It is further submitted that, admittedly, at the time of the accident the offending trailer was in the possession and control of Smt. Narinder Kaur. The driver Baljinder Singh himself has categorically stated that he was driving the vehicle of Narinder Kaur. Since there was no privity of contract between the appellant Insurance Company and respondent No.6, and no insurance policy was issued in her favour, the liability, if any, could only be of the person in possession of the vehicle and not of the insurer. Learned counsel further submits that as per the policy document, the insurance policy for the offending trailer was issued in the name of one Dalvinder Singh, who has not been impleaded as a party to the claim proceedings. In the absence of the insured being arrayed as a party, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121, to contend that non-impleadment of the insured absolves the insurer from liability. It is also argued that the 8 deceased Pramod Kumar himself was driving the motorcycle bearing No. C.G.04/FD/5318 at the time of the accident and had collided with the stationary trailer from behind. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle were necessary parties to the claim petition. In their absence, the claim petition itself was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the driver of the offending trailer, respondent No.5 Baljinder Singh, was driving the vehicle on the basis of a fake and invalid driving licence at the time of the accident. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Commissioner’s report dated 14.12.2016, which clearly records that the alleged original licence No. B/11097/R/88 was not traceable in the official register of the RTO, Raipur. The report further establishes that the licence was never issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that mere renewal of a fake licence does not make it valid, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 698. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal gravely erred in relying upon income tax returns filed after the death of the deceased Pramod Kumar, particularly Ex. P/02, which was filed by the widow of the deceased after his demise. It is submitted that as per settled law, income tax returns filed posthumously cannot be relied upon for determination of income. The Tribunal has thus committed a manifest error in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of such inadmissible 9 documents, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased, who collided with a stationary trailer from behind. The evidence on record, including the statements of eye-witnesses, clearly establishes that the deceased had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, as the motorcycle lights were on and the trailer was stationary. At the very least, the case is one of contributory negligence, warranting reduction of compensation to the extent of 50%. Learned counsel also submits that the business of the deceased, namely photocopy/STD/stationery shop, is still being run by the family members, as admitted by claimant Neetu Pal in her testimony. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding full loss of dependency, whereas the claimants are entitled to only partial compensation under this head. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company prays that the impugned award dated 27.07.2017 passed by the learned 6th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.236/2011 be set aside, the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from liability, and any amount paid pursuant to interim or final orders be directed to be reimbursed to the appellant, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants has filed cross objection to the appeal and has submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the 10 law, facts, and circumstances of the case and, therefore, deserves to be modified by this Hon’ble Court by way of enhancement. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to award due, just, and reasonable compensation under various permissible heads and has granted a meagre amount, resulting in grave injustice to the claimants, who are the wife, minor daughter, father, and mother of the deceased. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating and determining the correct income of the deceased. While the Tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs. 1,83,400/-, the claimants had specifically pleaded and proved that the deceased was earning substantially more, and the income ought to have been assessed at a much higher figure. Even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards future prospects, though the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident, and at least 40% addition towards future prospects ought to have been granted in accordance with settled principles of law. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to award just compensation under conventional heads. The amounts awarded towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses are grossly inadequate and not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal has also erred in not awarding appropriate compensation to appellant No. 3 merely on the ground that he was not dependent upon the deceased, though he was otherwise entitled to 11 compensation under the head of love and affection/filial consortium. It is also contended that the deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is erroneous, inasmuch as there were four dependents, and the deduction ought to have been limited to one-fourth. The multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal also requires reconsideration in light of the age of the deceased and the settled law on the subject. So far as the objections raised by the appellant–Insurance Company are concerned, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no dispute regarding the offending vehicle being duly insured with the appellant at the relevant time. The plea that the insured was not impleaded is beyond pleadings and, therefore, untenable. The allegation of contributory negligence is also baseless, as the offending trailer was negligently parked in the middle of the road without parking lights during night hours, which was the sole cause of the accident, a finding rightly recorded by the learned Tribunal. With regard to the income tax returns relied upon by the Tribunal, it is submitted that the return considered pertains to the period prior to the death of the deceased and has been rightly taken into account. However, the claimants are still entitled to addition towards future prospects, reduction in personal expenses, and enhancement under conventional heads such as consortium, filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, including in Magma General Insurance Co. 12 Ltd. v. Nanu Ram. In view of the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel for the claimants prays that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed, and the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed by suitably enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeals. 6. The occurrence of the accident on 10.06.2010 at about 8:50 p.m. near Village Baroda, within Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.), involving motorcycle No. C.G.04/FD/5318 driven by deceased Pramod Kumar and Trailer/Truck No. C.G.05/A/5413, is not in dispute. The core issues raised by the Insurance Company pertain to (i) negligence and contributory negligence, (ii) liability of the insurer on the ground of alleged absence of privity of contract and non-impleadment of the insured, (iii) validity of the driving licence of the trailer driver, (iv) non-impleadment of owner and insurer of the motorcycle, and (v) assessment of income of the deceased. 7. So far as the manner of the accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal, after detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the offending trailer was parked negligently in the middle of the road during night hours without parking lights or warning signals, which directly resulted in the collision. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in detail while deciding Issue No.2 and has rightly rejected 13 the plea of contributory negligence. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the said finding. Merely because the motorcycle collided from behind does not ipso facto establish negligence of the deceased, particularly when the vehicle was parked without safety precautions on a public road at night. The finding of negligence against the trailer driver is thus affirmed. 8. The contention of the Insurance Company that the insured was not impleaded and therefore the insurer is not liable is also devoid of merit. It is not in dispute that the offending trailer was covered under a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident. The plea regarding non-impleadment of the insured or alleged possession of the vehicle by respondent No.6 was neither substantiated by cogent evidence nor raised in a manner sufficient to dislodge the statutory liability of the insurer vis-à-vis third-party risk. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that disputes inter se between the owner, possessor and insurer cannot defeat the legitimate claim of third-party victims. The reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi is misplaced in the facts of the present case. 9. The objection regarding non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle is also untenable. The claim petition was founded on the negligence of the trailer driver, and the Tribunal has returned a clear finding to that effect. In such circumstances, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not necessary parties, and their non-impleadment does not vitiate the 14 proceedings. With regard to the allegation of fake driving licence, the learned Tribunal has considered the Commissioner’s report dated 14.12.2016 as well as the oral evidence on record. The Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company failed to establish a conscious and willful breach of policy conditions by the insured. Mere non-traceability of the original licence in the RTO record, particularly when the licence stood renewed, is not sufficient to absolve the insurer of its statutory liability towards third parties. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue is based on appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference in appeal. 10. The submission that the business of the deceased is still being run by family members and therefore full loss of dependency ought not to have been awarded is also misconceived. Continuation of business by dependents does not negate the loss suffered due to untimely death of the earning member, nor does it absolve the tortfeasor or insurer of liability. On an overall consideration of the record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned award after proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. No ground has been made out by the appellant / Insurance Company to interfere with the findings on negligence, liability, validity of driving licence or assessment of income. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 27.07.2017 passed in Claim Case 15 No.236/2011 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company are affirmed. 12. Having affirmed the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal on negligence, liability and validity of insurance, this Court now proceeds to examine the issue of computation of compensation, particularly in view of the cross objection filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased Pramod Kumar at Rs. 1,83,400/-, on the basis of income tax returns pertaining to the period prior to the accident. 13. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the said determination. The income assessed at Rs. 1,83,400/- per annum is therefore affirmed as the base income for computation. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident. In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the deceased was entitled to addition towards future prospects. Considering the age of the deceased and the nature of his avocation, this Court holds that 40% of the annual income is required to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the income of the deceased after addition of future prospects comes to Rs. 2,56,760/- per annum (Rs. 1,83,400 + 40%). As regards deduction towards personal and living expenses, it is not in 16 dispute that the deceased left behind four dependents, namely his wife, minor daughter, father and mother. In such circumstances, as per the settled law, deduction ought to be one-fourth (1/4th) of the income towards personal expenses. The deduction of one- third made by the learned Tribunal is therefore modified. After deducting one-fourth, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family is computed at Rs. 2,06,325/- per annum. With respect to the multiplier, considering the age of the deceased as 29 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 17, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency is thus computed at: Rs. 2,06,325 × 17 = Rs. 35,07,525/- 14. 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 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. 15. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re-determines the compensation amounts as follows: Annual Income 40% future Prospective (73,360/-) Rs. 1,83,400/- Rs. + 73,360/- 2,56,760/- 17 Personal Expenses(1/4) (-64,190/-) Multiplier (x17) Loss of Income Rs. 1,92,570/- Rs.32,73,690/- 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.35,01,690/- 16. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 35,01,690/-. After deducting Rs. 21,53,539/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 13,48,151/-. 17. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 13,48,151/- 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 - 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/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna