1 2025:CGHC:55470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1434 of 2018 1 - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Near Vanijjya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer Of Vehicle No. M.P. 06-H.C.1298), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Banwari Singh Parmar Aged About 44 Years R/o C/o B.P. Gupta, House No. 120, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Original Residence- Siddh Nagar Colony, Thana Kotwali, District- Murena, Madhya Pradesh., District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. 2 - Smt. Guddi W/o Shri Banwari Singh R/o C/o B.P. Gupta, House No. 120, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Original Residence- Siddh Nagar Colony, Thana Kotwali, District- Murena, Madhya Pradesh., District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. 3 - Anshul Parmar S/o Shri Banwari Singh Aged About 7 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Res. No.1 Shri Banwari Singh Parmar, R/o C/o B.P. Gupta, House No. 120, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Original Residence- Siddh Nagar Colony, Thana Kotwali, District- Murena, Madhya Pradesh., District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. 4 - Ku. Ranu Parmar D/o Shri Banwari Singh Aged About 14 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Res. No.1 Shri Banwari Singh Parmar, R/o C/o B.P. Gupta, House No. 120, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Original Residence- Siddh Nagar Colony, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Thana Kotwali, District- Murena, Madhya Pradesh......(Claimants), District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Rinku Singh S/o Sarman Singh Sikharwar Aged About 28 Years R/o Gopalpura, Thana City Kotwali, Murena Disrtict- Murena, Madhya Pradesh....(Driver Of Vehicle No. M.P. 06-H.C.1298)., District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. 6 - Smt. Seema Parmar W/o Kishan Singh Parmar R/o H.I.G. 1013, Mayurvan Colony, Murena District- Murena Madhya Pradesh......(Owner Of Vehicle No. M.P. 06-H.C. 1298), District : Morena, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent 5 & 6 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 19.6.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 10/2013, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,42,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 4 represented by Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, being the parents, brother, and sister of the deceased Dharmendra, had filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation under various heads, alleging that the deceased, aged about 20 years and unmarried, was working as a Khalasi earning Rs. 5,000 per month; that on 22.04.2012, while he was clearing the goods vehicle bearing registration No. MP-06-HC-1298 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), the respondent No. 5 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the deceased to fall from it, following which he was admitted to Balaji Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to his injuries on 05.05.2012; that the accident was reported to the Police Station Neora leading to registration of Crime No. 150/2012 against respondent No. 5; that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with the appellant, who was impleaded as a necessary party in compliance with Section 170 of the Act. Upon issuance of notices, respondents No. 5 and 6 filed their written statements denying the allegations, claiming that respondent No. 5 possessed a valid and effective driving license and contending that the liability, if any, lay upon the insurer. The appellant also filed its written statement denying all allegations and further pleaded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about four months, that the deceased was not an employee of 4 the vehicle owner and was travelling as an unauthorized occupant in a goods vehicle, and hence did not fall within the definition of a “third party,” and that his risk was not covered under Section 147 of the Act or under the insurance policy; it was also pleaded that the driver did not hold a valid license and that the vehicle lacked a valid fitness and permit certificate, while the income and profession of the deceased were also denied. The learned Tribunal, after framing issues based on the pleadings and appreciating the evidence, passed the impugned award against the appellant, who has deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards the statutory requirement for filing this appeal, an application under Section 170 of the Act was also filed and allowed, for which an exemption application regarding filing the certified copy of the order sheet is being submitted. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal is bad in law, arbitrary, contrary to the material on record, and suffers from an improper appreciation of evidence, as the deceased, being an occupant of a goods vehicle, did not fall within the scope of a third party, his risk was not covered under the policy, the offending vehicle was not proved to be involved, and the quantum of compensation awarded is excessively high. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the liability to pay compensation has been erroneously fastened upon the insurance company, as the insured vehicle was admittedly in the possession and control of a third person at the time of the incident, and despite the absence of any lawful or 5 justifiable reason to attribute such liability to the insurer, the Tribunal has nevertheless imposed the burden of compensation on the insurance company. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the Tribunal has correctly and comprehensively appreciated the entire evidence on record, and upon such due consideration, has rightly concluded that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the insurance company. It is further submitted that, apart from the driver, the premium for four additional occupants had already been paid, and therefore, in view of the contractual and statutory obligations arising from the policy, the insurance company cannot evade its liability and is rightly held responsible for payment of the compensation awarded. 6. None for respondents No. 5 to 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From a careful perusal of the record and the award passed by the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that the insurance premium was paid not only for the driver but also for four additional occupants of the vehicle. The material on record further indicates that the deceased was working as the cleaner of the vehicle, and therefore, he fell within the category of persons covered under the insurance policy. 6 Consequently, his presence in the vehicle was duly insured, and the liability of the insurance company stands established in accordance with the terms of the policy. Accordingly, it is submitted that the insurance company has been rightly held liable by the Tribunal to pay the awarded compensation, as the findings have been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence and in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy, and therefore, the well-reasoned conclusion of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Cross Appeal/Objection 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 30,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 30,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 20 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 are the parents, brother and sister of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 5,40,000/-. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 2,16,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 7,56,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,42,000/- in favour of the 7 parents, brother and sister of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- 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. 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. None for respondent Nos. 5 & 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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. 8 16. 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. 17. The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 60,000/- 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. 24,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 20 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 are the parents, brother and sister of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 42,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 42,000/-. 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 18, the total loss of 9 dependency works out to Rs. 7,56,000/-. 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. (40,000X4+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and son of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 9,84,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 7,56,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10% +10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 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. 9,84,000/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,84,000/-. After deducting Rs. 8,42,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,42,000/-. 20. In the result, the cross appeal filed by the claimants/respondents 10 No. 1 to 4 is partly allowed. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 i.e. parents, brother and sister of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- 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. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat