1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 910 of 2017 1 - Smt. Jeetmaniya W/o Late Sobhanath, Aged About 21 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Khajuriyadih Post Sahpur P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nawal Sai S/o Late Sobhanath Ram, Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jeetmaniya, R/o Village Khajuriyadih Post Sahpur P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mansu Ram S/o Sithu Ram, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Khajuriyadih Post Sahpur P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Salmaniya Kanwar W/o Mansu Ram, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Khajuriyadih Post Sahpur P.S. Chando Tahsil Samari Kushami District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants versus VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1 - Javed Ansari S/o Albakas 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 Limited Branch Office Brahm Road Near Kumkum Hotal 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. 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. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board 10-12-2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against 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. 159/2016, whereby a total compensation of Rs.8,37,800/- was awarded to the claimants 3 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2, while exonerating non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. 2. As per the claim petition, on 20.05.2015, deceased- Shobhnath, aged about 23 years, earning Rs.3,300/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Pickup bearing registration No.UP60-T-2659 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant No.1- Javed Ansari. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2 Krishna Gupta and insured with non-applicant No.3- United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,04,600/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3.300/- per month, whereas it should have been Rs.5,787/- per month as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in adding 30% towards future prospects, whereas it should have 4 been 40% looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 23 years and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 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. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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. 6 Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 10. As regards the income of the deceased- Shobhnath, although the claimants in the claim petition pleaded that the deceased 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 deceased and also considering the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased 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 deceased- Shobhnath was aged 23 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 deceased i.e. 23 years, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40% in place of 30%. 7 12. So far as amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is concerned, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- towards funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). Further, as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram (supra), the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 48,000/- x 4 each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs.2,28,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ 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. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.32,407/- (Rs.97,222/- - Rs.32,407/- = Rs.64,815/-) 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied Rs.64,815/- x 18 = Rs.11,66,670/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.36,000/- 06. Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants (Rs.48,000/- each) (Rs.48,000/- x 4) Rs.1,92,000/- Total Compensation Rs.13,94,670/- 13. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,37,800/-, after deducting the same from Rs.13,94,670/-, the appellants/claimants 8 are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,56,870/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. 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 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. 15. 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. 9 16. 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 claimants, this Court directs that respondent No. 3/non- applicant No. 3–Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in the 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. 17. 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. 10 18. With the aforesaid modification and clarification, the appeal stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha