1 2025:CGHC:57111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1186 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Anupama Chowk Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Signatory Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer , 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Gangi Wd/o Gangarram Muchaki Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Doleras Post Pendalnar Police Station Kukanar Tehsil Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Nagesh S/o Late Gangaram Mukachi Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gangi Aged 30 Years Wd/o Gangarram Muchaki ( Res. No. 1 ) R/o Village Doleras Post Pendalnar Police Station Kukanar Tehsil Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Pramod S/o Late Gangaram Muchaki Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gangi Aged 30 Years Wd/o Gangarram Muchaki ( Res. No. 1 ) R/o Village Doleras Post Pendalnar Police Station Kukanar Tehsil Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Koderam F/o Late Gangaram Mukachi Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Doleras Post Pendalnar Police Station Kukanar Tehsil Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Smt. Hungi W/o Koderam Muchaki Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Doleras Post Pendalnar Police Station Kukanar Tehsil Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Rajuram Nag @ Bhaira S/o Late Atiram Nag Aged About 38 Years R/o Chindgarh Hospital Colony Tehsil Chindgarh Police Station And District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Virendranath Mandavi S/o Mundaram Mandavi R/o Village Post Chindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. This is the Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 20.4.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in MACT No. 23/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 9,77,200/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle Commander Jeep bearing No. C.G.-18-T-0190 was being plied without valid and effective road permit as well as fitness certificate. He further submits that the mechanical report obtained by the police goes to show that the break system was broken and as such there was breach of policy conditions. He further submits that the insured has also not 3 furnished information regarding accident of the vehicle under Section 158 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He further submits that the quantum of compensation is also required to be rectified as notional income work out to be Rs. 4,500/- per month which is on higher side. The deceased was employer of the owner as such he was not working as paid employee as such the liability as well as quantum of compensation is not in accordance with law. The insurance company is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation and the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is required to be re-considered. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No. 562/2021. 3. None for the respondents though notice has been served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the document as well as record. 5. From the perusal of record, it appears that in a case of death of one Gangaram Muchaki@ Ganga a sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the evidence of the parties has held that there was no breach of policy. The offending vehicle Commander Jeep bearing No. C.G.- 18-T-0190, it has been held as per Section 149 (2) (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act the conditions which has been prescribed for breach of insurance policy does not state about fitness of the vehicle. 6. So far as permit of the vehicle is concerned from the evidence 4 adduced by the parties it appears that the deceased sustained injuries on account of accident took place by the offending vehicle as the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and intelligently they had gone to fill up the diesel tanker it was Commander Jeep bearing No. C.G.-18-T-0190 for which the permit as stated by the insurance company does not seems to be required. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Odisha and Another vs. Vijaya C. Tripathi, 2004 7 SCC 139, it has observed as under:- “The High Court also appears to have misread Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. All that Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides is that the owner of a motor vehicle cannot use the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit. Section 66, therefore, merely prevents use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle without a permit. It does not prohibit driving of such a vehicle on a public road. The vehicle can be driven on a public rad so long as it is not used as a transport vehicle. To take an extreme example, the owner of such a vehicle may use that vehicle for taking his family out for a picnic. Section 66 will not bar such a use. It is thus clear that even in the absence of a permit the vehicle remains a transport vehicle which is capable of being used on a road so long as the vehicle has a valid certificate of fitness and a valid registration 5 certificate. In such cases it has to be presumed that such a vehicle has been "kept for use" irrespective of whether of not it was actually used on the road.” 8. The judgment relied upon and cited by the appellant is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present matter, as the legal principles laid down therein do not correspond to the issues involved in this case, nor do they offer any substantive support to the appellant’s contentions. The ground of permit as raised by the insurance company is not substantiated by any plausible evidence. Regarding fitness of the vehicle there is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle was not fit for plying on road. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. 10. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of 6 insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 11. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 12. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- 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 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 27,778/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 97,222/-. 13. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 32 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are the wife, children 7 and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 24,306/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 72,916/-. 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 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,66,656/-. 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. (40,000X5+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 14,42,656/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 11,66,656/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10% +10%). Rs. 2,40,000/- 8 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. 14,42,656/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 14,42,656/-. After deducting Rs. 9,77,200/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,65,456/-. 15. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount of compensation including enhanced compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. It is also directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat