1 2025:CGHC:57093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 466 of 2018 1 - Smt. Kumari Sen W/o Late Radheshyam Sen Aged About 48 Years R/o Ramsagar Para, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Haradhan Day S/o Narayanchandra Day Aged About 52 Years Occupation Driver Cum Owner Of Mini Bus, R/o Gram Mana Kamp, P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner Of Mini Bus No. C.G.04-E-2903), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C.G.04-E- 2903), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. MAC No. 528 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch- Office, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...............Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C. G.-04 E- 2903). .............Non-Applicant No. 2., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Kumari Sen W/o Wd/o Late Radheshyam Sen Aged About 48 Years R/o Ramsagar Para Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Applicant., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Haradhan Dey S/o S/o Shri Narayanchandra Dey Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill.- Mana Camp, P. S. Mana Camp, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .................(Owner Cum Driver Of Mini Bus No. C. G. 04 E- 2903)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 12.01.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 466 of 2018 is claimants’ appeal and MAC No. 528/2018 is insurer’s appeal against the award dated 12.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 513/16. MAC No. 466/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the claimant is the legally wedded wife and valid legal representative of the deceased, Radheshyam Sen. She filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of his death in a road accident on 29.04.2015. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the deceased was travelling with his friends in a Mini Bus bearing No. CG-04-E-2903 after attending a marriage ceremony, and at about 3:00 A.M., when the vehicle reached near Gadahadered Bridge, the driver drove the Mini Bus in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a tractor coming from the opposite direction, resulting in severe head injuries to the deceased, leading to his death on the way to the District Hospital, Dhamtari. The incident was reported at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, where Crime No. 155/2015 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed 4 before the competent court. The deceased, aged about 52 years, was a healthy person earning approximately Rs. 12,000/- per month from private service and part-time work in a barber shop, and the claimant was fully dependent upon him, suffering great pain, agony, and financial hardship due to his death. Notices of the claim application were issued, and non-applicant No. 1 remained ex parte, while the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) filed a reply contending that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle did not have fitness and permit, amounting to a violation of policy conditions, and therefore the insurer could not be held liable. Both parties adduced evidence; however, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,18,000/- against the present appellant. The Tribunal framed four issues, and while deciding Issue No. 2 in paragraphs 18 to 21, held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation, but erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side by taking the notional income as only Rs. 4,000/- per month instead of Rs. 12,000/- as claimed by the claimant. 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 16,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 32,000/-. After adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 320/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 32,320/- (Rs. 5 33,000/-) and considering the age of the deceased to be 55 years and the appellant/claimant is the wife of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 3,63,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000/- in favour of the wife of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent No. 1 i.e. driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 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. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5787/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 69,444/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 6,944/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 76,388/-. 7 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 55 years and the appellant/claimant is the wife of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 25,463/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 50,925/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,60,175/-. 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. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X1+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant i.e. wife of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 6,44,175/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,60,175/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% Rs. 48,000/- 8 +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 6,44,175/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 6,44,175/-. After deducting Rs. 4,18,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,26,175/-. 13. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 466/2018) is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant i.e. wife of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,26,175/- 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. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. MAC No. 528/2018 14. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 29.04.2015, Radheshyam Sen, along with other Baratees, was travelling as a passenger in a Mini Bus bearing registration No. CG-04-E-2903, and while they were crossing near the Gadadih bridge, Respondent No. 2, the Owner- cum-Driver of the Mini Bus, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting in a collision with a tractor coming from the 9 opposite direction; due to the impact, Radheshyam Sen sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. For the death of Radheshyam Sen, his wife filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 14,50,000/-. Respondent No. 2 remained absent throughout the proceedings before the Learned Tribunal, leading to the matter being proceeded ex parte against him. The appellant Assurance Company, in its written statement, denied all material allegations of the claim petition, contending that Respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the Mini Bus lacked the requisite fitness certificate and permit, thereby constituting a violation of the policy conditions, rendering the insurer not liable; accordingly, the insurer sought dismissal of the claim against it. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the Learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon inquiry, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization, in favour of Respondent No. 1 and against Respondent No. 2 and the appellant Assurance Company, holding them jointly and severally liable. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law, as the appellant had duly established through evidence that on the date and time of the alleged accident, the Mini Bus in 10 question was being plied without a valid permit, in clear violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently in breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, thereby absolving the Insurance Company of any liability to pay compensation. He further submits that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharthamma & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 517, and the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Ramkumar and another v. Nistor Kindo & Ors., 2012 ACJ 1950, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from liability. He further submits that the compensation awarded is excessively high and unjustified, and submitted that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 25,000/- before the Claims Tribunal in compliance with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 17. None for respondent No. 2 i.e. owner cum driver of the offending vehicle. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 11 material available on record. 19. In view of the above facts, submissions, and the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the grounds urged by the appellant/Insurance Company, as the findings of the Learned Claims Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2 and the consequent entitlement of the claimant to compensation are duly supported by evidence, and the alleged absence of permit or other documents, even if assumed, would not absolve the insurer of its statutory liability to satisfy the award vis-à-vis third parties, moreover, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles governing assessment of compensation, and cannot be said to be either excessive or unjustified. 20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat