1 2025:CGHC:52522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1319 of 2017 1 - Naniram Soni S/o Chunnu Lal Soni, Aged About 52 Years R/o Geedam, Sonarpara, Tahsil Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Maina Bai, W/o Naniram Soni, Aged About 45 Years R/o Geedam, Sonarpara, Tahsil Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. , District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Kiran, D/o Naniram Soni, Aged About 22 Years Disabled R/o Geedam, Sonarpara, Tahsil Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. , District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Anamika, D/o Naniram Soni, Aged About 14 Years Applicant No. 3 Ku. Anamika Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Naniram Soni, R/o Geedam, Sonarpara, Tahsil Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. , District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shaleban Bhoi S/o S/o Late Ramchandra Bhoi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Singhanpur, Saraipali, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Hudco Colony Avrabhata, Post Avrabhata, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh Driver , Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2 - Secret Heart Hospital, Katiyarras, Dantewada, Through Administrator S. N. Hospital, Dr. Merli James, D/o P. C. Chako, S. H. Convent/ Hospital Katiyarras, Post And Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ..........Owner, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Kevramuda Ward, Near Jhankar Cinema, Jagdalpur, Post Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh. ..........Insurer, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1528 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Kevramunda Ward, Near Jhankar Chinema, Jagdalpur, Post Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Pin 494001 .............Insurance Policy No. 45120431120200003481 Upto From Dated 10.03.2013 To 09.03.2014, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Naniram Soni S/o S/o Chunnu Lal Soni, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Gold Smith, R/o Sonarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Maina Bai Soni W/o Naniram Soni, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Sonarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Kiran D/o Naniram Soni, Age 22 Years, Handicapped Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Naniram Soni, R/o Sonarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Ku. Anamika D/o Naniram Soni, Age 14 Years, Student Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Naniram Soni, R/o Sonarpara, Tehsil And Post Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shaleban Bhoi S/o Late Ramchandra Bhoi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Singhanpur Saraipali Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Hudko Colony Aavrabhata, Post Aavrabhata, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh .............Driver Of Vehicle D.L.No.S. 1403/ D.W.D./10, Dated 03.07.2010 To 02.07.2030 Dantewada R.T.O., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 6 - Cicrit Heart Hospital, Katiar Ras, Dantewada, Through Administrator S.H.Hospital, D.R. Merli Jens, D./o. P.C.Chako, S.H.Convent/ Hospital, Katiar Ras, Post And Tehsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ..............Registered Owner Of Vehicle Mahindra And Mahindra Ambulance, Registered No. C.G.18 G.0104, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate appearing for their respective parties. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (28.10.2025) 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same impugned order dated 29.07.2017 passed in Claim Case No.13/2014, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. 4 2. These aforesaid two appeals arises out of the award dated 29.07.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 13/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.8,44,000/- with interest @ 11% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 3. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of these appeals, are that the deceased Deepak Kumar Soni alias Bablu was the son of Applicant No. 1, the father, Applicant No. 2, the mother, and the brother of Applicants No. 3 and 4. The family was wholly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, who was a young man of 20 years of age at the time of his untimely demise. The deceased was engaged in the profession of goldsmith (sonari) and used to earn approximately ₹12,000 to ₹15,000 per month, which he regularly contributed towards the maintenance and welfare of all the applicants. On the 30th day of May, 2013, at about 8:45 a.m., the deceased, while riding his Scooty vehicle bearing registration number CG–07–LW–1217, was traveling with his friend Yogesh Kumar Soni towards the latter’s residence. When they reached near the house of Tilak Soni, situated on Jagdalpur– Geedam Road, an Ambulance vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra make, bearing registration number CG–18–G–0104, being driven by Respondent No. 1, came from the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules or public safety, and violently collided with the Scooty ridden by the deceased and his companion. Due to the forceful impact, both riders were thrown off the vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries all 5 over their bodies. The injured were immediately taken for medical treatment to nearby hospitals. The deceased, Deepak Kumar Soni alias Bablu, remained under continuous medical care at different hospitals for several months. Despite extensive treatment and best efforts made by the family, the deceased could not recover from the severe injuries sustained in the said accident and succumbed to those injuries on 04.10.2013, i.e., after about four months of suffering. The tragic death of the deceased thus directly resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the said Ambulance by Respondent No. 1. The said offending vehicle, bearing registration number CG–18–G–0104, was, at the relevant time, owned by Respondent No. 2, and it stood duly insured with Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, thereby making all the respondents jointly and severally liable for the loss caused to the applicants. On the basis of the complaint lodged regarding the accident, Crime No. 40/2013 was registered at Police Station Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) against Respondent No. 1 under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, for rash and negligent driving causing death. It is submitted that the deceased was a young, hardworking individual with bright prospects in life. His income, derived from his work as a goldsmith, was the sole means of sustenance for his dependent family members—the present applicants. His untimely and avoidable death has caused them irreparable loss of financial support, affection, and emotional stability. The applicants have suffered immense mental agony and distress, being deprived of his love, care, and companionship. Furthermore, 6 substantial expenses were incurred towards his medical treatment, funeral, and related rituals following his death. Therefore, the applicants humbly claim a total compensation of ₹32,65,507/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seven only) under various heads, including loss of dependency, medical expenses, loss of love and affection, mental agony, funeral and other incidental expenses. The applicants further pray that the said amount be awarded jointly and severally against Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this petition until its realization, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair compensation. 4. The counsel appearing for the claimants respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and hence deserves interference. The Tribunal has failed to apply the settled principles governing the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in their correct perspective, resulting in an erroneous and inadequate award. It is submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent and social welfare legislation, intended to provide just and fair compensation to victims of motor accidents, and therefore strict rules of evidence are not required to be rigidly applied in such proceedings. The learned Tribunal, however, erred in ignoring this settled position of law and in arbitrarily restricting the medical expenses to ₹50,000/- and attendant charges to ₹20,000/-, despite the claimants having produced all relevant medical bills, treatment records, and 7 vouchers from MPM Hospital, Jagdalpur, and other medical establishments, along with a duly prepared list of documents, all of which form part of the record and can be verified from the original file. The Tribunal further failed to take into consideration the final bill issued by Narayana Hospital, MMI, dated 04.07.2013, amounting to ₹3,10,981/-, as well as the bills of Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, which collectively demonstrate that the total medical expenses incurred amounted to ₹4,23,507/-, thereby causing grave injustice to the claimants by awarding only a nominal sum towards this head. The Tribunal also erred in not granting any reasonable compensation under the heads of loss of love and affection and loss of estate, for which at least ₹1,00,000/- each ought to have been awarded, keeping in view the settled principles of just compensation. It is further submitted that the poor claimants ought not to be prejudiced merely because all the medical bills were not formally marked during evidence, particularly when they were filed on record before the Tribunal and remained unchallenged. The impugned award thus suffers from material irregularity, legal infirmity, and improper appreciation of evidence, and therefore, the same is liable to be modified and suitably enhanced in the interest of justice and fair compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that It was incumbent upon the claimants to establish that the death of pillion rider Deepak alias Bablu was caused by the motor accident dated 30.05.2013; however, in the absence of such proof, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. No medical practitioner was 8 examined by the claimants to substantiate that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the alleged accident. Furthermore, neither the medical bills nor the prescriptions purportedly issued by any doctor were duly proved to demonstrate that continuous treatment was administered to the deceased. No hospital employee or other medical witness was produced before the learned Tribunal to corroborate the same. It is a settled legal position that proving the cause of death is mandatory for the success of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, the offending vehicle, i.e., Ambulance No. CG-18-G- 0104, was being driven by respondent No. 5, Shaleban, without a valid and effective driving licence; hence, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the loss. As per the registration certificate, the said vehicle was duly registered as an ambulance, which, by virtue of the Rajpatra notification dated 30.05.1991, falls under the category of a transport vehicle requiring a valid fitness certificate. The driver, however, possessed only an LMV licence issued for twenty years, whereas, as per the amended provisions of Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (effective from 14.11.1994), a transport vehicle licence can be issued only for a period of three years. Thus, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence, permit, or fitness certificate, rendering the Insurance Company not liable for compensation. Additionally, the learned Tribunal has also wrongly applied the future prospects at 50%, whereas, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicable rate of future prospects should be 40% only, considering 9 that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment expenses and Rs. 20,000/- under the head of assistance, despite there being no supporting documents or evidence on record. The Tribunal further erred in awarding excessive interest at the rate of 11% per annum, which is unjustified and may kindly be reduced to 6% per annum in the interest of justice. 6. No representation was made on behalf of Driver-cum-Owner. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 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 Rs.8,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, however, there is no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, this Court finds it appropriate to hold that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,943/-, at the relevant time of 10 accident as per Minimum Wages Act. The annual income of the deceased is calculated to Rs.59,316/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was not married and the claimants are the parents and sisters of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 1 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.59,316/- + Rs.23,726/- (Rs.59,31/6/- + 40/100 = Rs.83,042/-), deduction towards personal expenses would be 50% which comes to Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- / 2 = Rs.41,521/-), the annual income comes to Rs.41,521/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,47,382/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 2 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs.48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) i.e. Rs.1,92,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,75,382/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 3 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 11 Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.59,316/- (Rs.4,943/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 40% Rs.23,726/- (Rs.59,316/- x 40%) 03 Deduction ½ Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- - 50%) 04 Total Income of the Deceased Rs.41,521/- (Rs.83,042/- – Rs.41,521/-), 05 Multiplier of 18 Rs.7,47,381/- (Rs.41,521 x 18) 06 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 07 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 08 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 4 Rs. 1,92,000/- Total Rs.9,75,382/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.9,75,382/- from Rs.8,44,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,31,82/-, which shall carry interest @ 8% per annum (reduced from 11% per annum) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeals are allowed in part. The award dated 29.07.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena