1 2025:CGHC:61311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR\ MAC No. 1941 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Office Micro-Office, Paras Complex, Opposite State Bank Of India, Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Mst. Aruna Wd/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Surendra Kaushik S/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sharda D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their Mother Mst. Aruna Kaushik, Wd/o. Late Parmanand Kaushik (Respondent No.1), R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Bharti D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Mother Mst. Aruna Kaushik, Wd/o Late Parmanand Kaushik (Respondent No.1), R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Padmani D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Mother Mst. Aruna Kaushik, Wd/o Late Parmanand Kaushik (Respondent No.1), R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Santram Kaushik S/o Late Baliram Kaushik Aged About 68 Years R/o Village - Kumhardaniya, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ritesh Talreja S/o Preetam Talreja Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 544, Kannsavar Nagar, Nandani Kundani, Ahiwara, Police Station - Nandani Ahiwara, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, 8 - Prakash Agrawal S/o Virendra Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Tilda, Nevra, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.17 17:32:33 +0530 2 9 - Milap Singh S/o Mansingh Markam Aged About 28 Years R/o Singhari, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District - Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 1948 of 2018 1 - Must. Aruna W/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Surendra Kaushik S/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sharda D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 16 Years Minor Represented through Natural Guardian Mother Must. Aruna Kaushik W/o Late Parmanand Kaushik, R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Bharti D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented through Natural Guardian Mother Must. Aruna Kaushik W/o Late Parmanand Kaushik, R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Padmani D/o Late Parmanand Kaushik Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented through Natural Guardian Mother Must. Aruna Kaushik W/o Late Parmanand Kaushik, R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Santram Kaushik S/o Late Baliram Kaushik Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kumhardaniya, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants Versus 1 - Ritesh Talreja S/o Preetam Talreja Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 544, Kannaswar Nagar, Nandani Kundani, Ahiwara, Police Station Nandani Ahiwara, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prakash Agrawal S/o Virendra Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Tilda, Newra, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Milap Singh S/o Mansingh Markam Aged About 28 Years R/o Singhari, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office MICRO Office, Near Paras Complex, State Bank Of India, Gurudwara Station Road, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Insurance Company : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Owner : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 16.12.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.76/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 3. MAC No.1941/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation as also breach of policy conditions, whereas MAC No.1948/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 22.06.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., the deceased, Parmanand Kaushik, was returning to his home from village Kumhardaniya on his motorcycle. When he reached near Maharajpur Chowk, he 4 noticed a Bolero vehicle approaching at a high speed. Apprehending danger, he parked his motorcycle on the side of the road and stood away from it while waiting to proceed further. At that very time, non-applicant No.3, while driving Bolero bearing registration No. CG-07/CA-6173 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, hit the deceased, resulting in a serious accident. Due to the impact, Parmanand Kaushik sustained grievous injuries on his head and abdomen. He was immediately shifted in a 108 ambulance to the Government Hospital, Kawardha, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. On the report of the incident, Police Station Kawardha registered Crime No. 212/2016 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against non-applicant No.3, Milap Singh, and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. 5. The claimants being widow, children and father of the deceased filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that the deceased was a healthy 45-year-old skilled mason. He used to earn approximately Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1,000/- per day from masonry work, Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month from contracting work, and about Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum from vegetable cultivation, and was the sole breadwinner of his family. On account of his untimely death, 5 the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.58,25,000/- under various heads from the non-applicants. 6. Non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3, in their joint written statement, have denied the allegations and contended that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 09/H-2913 without a valid driving licence, in a rash and negligent manner, and while jumping over a speed breaker, lost control and collided with the offending vehicle, which was being driven slowly and cautiously. It is further alleged that a false case has been registered against non-applicant No.3 only to claim compensation. According to them, non-applicant No.3 was holding a valid driving licence and was driving the Bolero vehicle owned by non-applicant No.1 in the course of employment, and the vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.4 on the date of the accident. They further pleaded non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Non-applicant No.4, United India Insurance Company Limited, has also filed a separate written statement disputing its liability. It has denied that the Bolero vehicle was covered under a comprehensive insurance policy on the date of the accident and alleged that the deceased was driving the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and was solely responsible for the accident. It has further contended that non-applicant No.3 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, amounting 6 to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify or pay any compensation. 8. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.7,78,750/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No.1, 3 and 4 and primary liability rests upon the insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was not insured at the date and time of the accident, as the insurance policy had already been terminated prior to the accident, i.e., on 29.01.2016. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in law by fastened liability upon the Insurance Company despite the policy having been cancelled. 10. However, learned counsel for the owner contends that the grounds now raised by the Insurance Company were not pleaded in its written statement nor were they argued before the Claims Tribunal. At this stage, learned counsel for the/Insurance Company submits that they have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which they have 7 annexed the copy of the insurance policy along with the cancellation notice. Therefore, it is submitted that the ground regarding the termination of the policy can now be taken into consideration while allowing the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 12. First, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.1941/2018. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 2 with regard to breach of policy conditions, has held that the burden of proving this issue lies on non-applicant No. 4, the insurance company. However, non-applicant No. 4 has not adduced any evidence to substantiate its claim. Interestingly, in its counterclaim, at Paragraph 2, the insurance company denied that the offending vehicle was covered by a comprehensive all-risks insurance policy on the date of the alleged accident. Yet, in Paragraph 22 of the same counterclaim, non-applicant No. 4 contended that the driver of the Bolero, non-applicant No. 3, did not possess a valid driving licence, and on that basis, the insurance company claimed that it was not liable for compensation due to violation of the insurance policy terms. 14. In the opinion of the Tribunal, if the vehicle had truly not been insured on the date of the accident, there would have been no 8 reason for non-applicant No. 4 to raise a defence based on alleged violation of the policy conditions. Upon examining the documents on record, including the photocopy of the insurance policy submitted by non-applicants No. 1 to 3, it is evident that the offending vehicle, Insurance Policy No.2703813115P111307213, was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited in the name of non-applicant No. 1, Ritesh Talreja, for the period from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016. Furthermore, the certified copy of the property seizure memo (Ex.P/7) notes that the insurance papers along with the vehicle were seized. 15. Even otherwise, non-applicant No. 4 has failed to produce any evidence that could substantiate its claim that the vehicle was not insured on 22.06.2016. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal held that non-applicant No. 4 cannot succeed in proving that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the insurance policy at the time of the accident. 16. Upon meticulous examination of the record, it is abundantly clear that the Insurance Company neither raised the ground regarding termination of the insurance policy before the Claims Tribunal in its written statement nor brought it up during the course of arguments. The contention now sought to be urged before this Court is entirely different in nature from the defence advanced before the Claims Tribunal, which dealt with other aspects of alleged violation of the insurance policy terms. 9 17. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be lightly or casually allowed merely on the basis of documents filed at a belated stage, particularly when such grounds were never taken before the competent authority or substantiated with evidence during the original proceedings. The law requires that issues raised at such a stage must not alter or introduce entirely new contentions that were not canvassed before the lower forum. 18. In this context, the Claims Tribunal rightly proceeded on the basis of the pleadings and evidence before it and held the Insurance Company liable in accordance with the law. The Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in law in fastened liability upon the Insurance Company, as the appellant has failed to substantiate its belated claim with credible evidence. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.1941/2018 along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 20. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1948/2018. 21. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 3, has held that the first question to be considered is whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. It is undisputed that claimant No. 1, Smt. Aruna Kaushik, is the widow of the deceased Parmanand Kaushik; claimants No. 2 to 5, namely Surendra Kaushik, Ms. 10 Sharda Kaushik, Ms. Bharti Kaushik, and Ms. Padmini Kaushik, are the children of the deceased; and claimant No. 6, Santram Kaushik, is the father of the deceased. As the legal heirs of the deceased and in the absence of any evidence that the claimants had independent income during the lifetime of the deceased, the Tribunal held that they are justly entitled to compensation for the premature death of Parmanand Kaushik caused by the motor accident. 22. It was undisputed that non-applicant No. 3, Milap Singh, was the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07/CA- 6173, and non-applicant No. 1, Ritesh Talreja, was the registered owner. Therefore, non-applicants No. 1 and 3 were held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Regarding the liability of non- applicant No. 4, United India Insurance Company Limited, since it had not been proved that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy at the time of the accident, the Tribunal held that non-applicant No. 4 is also liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, non-applicants No. 1, 3, and 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants. 23. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that claimant No. 1 stated that the deceased earned Rs. 1,000/- per day as a mason and in agriculture. However, she could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate this claim, including proof of income, agricultural land, or work records. In the 11 absence of such evidence, the Tribunal could not accept the claimed daily income of Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, a hypothetical monthly income of Rs. 4,500/- was considered for the purpose of determining compensation. The age of the deceased was accepted as 45 years based on the claim application and the certified autopsy report. A 25% addition was made to account for future prospects, and one-fourth was deducted for the deceased’s personal expenses, resulting in an annual income of Rs. 50,625/-. Applying the multiplier of 14 for the age of 45 years, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 7,08,750/-. 24. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the amount of dependency calculated by the Claims Tribunal has been rightly determined and is hereby affirmed. Regarding the additional heads of compensation, the scope of ‘consortium’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130, which recognizes three types: parental consortium (payable to children due to the death of parents), spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse due to the death of a partner), and filial consortium (payable to parents due to the death of children). In view of this, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 12 25. Further, in accordance with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 15,000/- is payable towards loss of estate. In addition, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others AIR 2020 SC 3076, a 10% enhancement for every three years is applicable to the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. 26. Accordingly, the amounts for consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate are recalculated and enhanced in line with the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, ensuring fair and just compensation to the claimants in addition to the dependency amount already determined. 27. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Loss of dependency as already awarded by learned Claims Tribunal Rs.7,08,750/- 2. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 Rs.18,000/- 13 with increase of 10% in every three years 4. Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.2,88,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.10,32,750/- 28. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.10,32,750/-. After deducting Rs.7,78,750/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,54,000/-. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1948/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.2,54,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 30. Since, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and it is proved that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation along with enhanced amount of compensation to 14 the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 31. Let the record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. 32. Since none has appeared on behalf of the claimants, in spite of due notice, it is directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh 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 Yogesh