1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 907 of 2017 1 - Mangal Dev Paikra S/o Ghasi Ram, Aged About 37 Years Occupation Laborer And Agriculturist R/o Village Bhojpur Post Sahpur P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Javed Ansari S/o Alabakas Ansari, Aged About 23 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Chando Gijaipara, P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Gupta S/o Ramsawarth Gupta, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Owner And Agriculturist R/o Village Chando Gijaipara P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Brahm Road Near Kumkum Hotel Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title Taken From Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10-12-2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the award dated 20.02.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 158/2016, whereby compensation of Rs. 9,07,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant, fastening liability upon non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, while exonerating non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 20.05.2015 at about 7:30 p.m., the injured/claimant- Mangal Dev Painkara, aged about 38, earning Rs.3,300/- by doing the agricultural and labour work, along with several others, was waiting for a bus at Bhojpur Turn to attend a Bahurata programme at village Ghatgaon. At that time, a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. UP-64-T-2659, owned by respondent No. 2, was passing from the Chando side. On the request of Samarth Paikra, the driver, after obtaining permission from the owner and without charging any fare, took all of them to 3 Ghatgaon. After the programme concluded, claimant-Mangal Dev Painkara and others were returning on foot towards the main road, while their luggage was being carried in the said pickup vehicle, which was proceeding towards village Khajuriyadih. While travelling on the Ghatgaon–Champa main road, respondent No. 1 drove the pickup rashly and negligently, dashed claimant-Mangal Dev Paikra and other pedestrians and the offending vehicle overturned. As a result of the accident, claimant-Mangal Dev Paikra sustained grievous injuries and remained admitted in District Hospital, Ambikapur, from 21.05.2015 to 03.06.2015. Due to the severity of the injuries, his left hand was completely damaged and had to be amputated up to the wrist. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.13,60,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the claimant/injured at Rs. 3,300/- per month, whereas it should have been Rs. 5,787/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the 4 Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects, whereas it should have been 40%, considering the age of the claimant, i.e., 38 years, and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel further submits that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads are also on the lower side and require enhancement. 5. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, submits that the learned Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver, despite the fact that on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was validly insured with non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. He further submits that there was no breach of any policy condition proved on record, and therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the liability to satisfy the award ought to have been fastened exclusively upon the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award, submits that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability after appreciating the evidence available on record, as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, failed to prove compliance with the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 6 10. As regards the income of the claimant-Mangal Dev Paikra, although the claimant in the claim petition pleaded that the he was earning Rs.3,300/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work, however, as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, the monthly income of an unskilled worker comes to Rs.5,787/- per month. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the nature of work of the claimant and also considering the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,787/- per month as per the minimum wages at the relevant time. 11. As regard the future prospects, it is pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred on 20.05.2015 and at that time, the claimant- Mangal Dev Paikra was aged 38 years as assessed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the claimant i.e. 38 years, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40% in place of 50%. 12. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant in the said accident, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant/injured is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering in place of Rs.10,000/-; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical treatment. 7 13. Now, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the claimant @ Rs.5,787/- per month Rs.69,444/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.27,778/- Rs.69,444/- + Rs.27,778/-= Rs.97,222/- 03. Multiplier of 15 to be applied Rs.97,222/- x 15 = Rs.14,58,330/- 04. 100% permanent disability as assessed by the Tribunal Rs.14,58,330/- 05. Towards Medicine Rs.2,000/- 06. Towards Transportation & Attendant Rs.2,000/- 07. Towards Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 08. Towards loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 09. Towards Future Medical Treatment Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.16,62,330/- 14. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.9,07,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.16,62,330/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,55,330/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. As regards the payment of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 62, wherein it was held that the statutory right of a third party to recover compensation from the insurer cannot be defeated by breach of policy conditions, and the 8 insurer would be entitled to recover the amount from the insured subsequently. In view thereof, the Claims Tribunal fastened joint and several liability upon non-applicant No.1, Dinesh Shrivas, and the appellant i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Iyyapan (supra) has clearly enunciated the principle that, at the time of the accident, the person who is in actual control and possession of the offending vehicle bears the primary liability to pay compensation. The Apex Court has further clarified that the statutory right of a third party to recover compensation cannot be defeated on the ground of breach of policy conditions between the insured and the insurer. In such circumstances, the insurer is under a statutory obligation to satisfy the award in favour of third- party victims, with liberty to recover the same from the person primarily responsible, namely, the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 17. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, and further considering that at the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3– Insurance Company, and in order to safeguard the rights of third- party claimant, this Court directs that respondent No. 3/non- applicant No. 3–Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in the 9 first instance. At the same time, it is clarified that respondent No. 3–Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount so paid from non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2/respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in accordance with law, by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent forum. Such a course of action balances the statutory rights of the claimants and the contractual rights of the insurer, as consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, S. Iyyapan (supra), and Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650. 18. Accordingly, it is directed that respondent No. 3–Insurance Company shall first pay the awarded sum to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2/respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. However, the rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. With the aforesaid modification and clarification, the appeal stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha