1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 11.09.2025 Order passed on : 19.11.2025 MAC No. 1780 of 2018 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Kutchery Chaowk ,jail Road Raipur ,district Raipur Through Authorised ,signatory Divisional Manager ,divisional Office ,2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Dhananjay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ashok Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhaiya Krishnanagar ,tikrapara ,police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ashok Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhaiya Krishnanagar ,tikrapara ,police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Priyanka Gupta D/o Late Ashok Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhaiya Krishnanagar ,tikrapara ,police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 4 - Dashrath Shah S/o Bhukh Lal Prasad Aged About 68 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhaiya Krishnanagar ,tikrapara ,police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dinesh Sinha S/o Vikrama Sinha Aged About 58 Years R/o Camp -2 Near Gurudwara Chhawni District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - B.S.B. Company Private Limited Nandani Road Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1798 of 2018 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Througth Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Kutchery Chouk Jail Road Raipur ,district Raipur Through Authorised Signatory Divisional Manger ,divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Tower Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Dhananjay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ashok Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg Chhattistgarh Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Police Station Late Kanhiaya Krishnanagar ,tikra, Para ,police Station Tikra Para ,raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ashok Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg Chhattistgarh Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhiaya Krishnanagar ,tikra, Para ,police Station Tikra Para ,raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Priyanka Gupta D/o Late Ashok Khan Aged About 23 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg Chhattistgarh Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhiaya Krishnanagar ,tikra, Para ,police Station Tikra Para ,raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Dash Shah S/o Bhukh Lal Prasad Aged About 68 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Ward No. 16 ,lohiya Road ,housing Board Jamul Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg Chhattistgarh Presently R/o C/o Manoj Gupta S/o Late Kanhiaya Krishnanagar ,tikra, Para ,police Station Tikra Para ,raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dinesh Sinha S/o Vikrama Singha R/o Campa -2 Near Gurusdwara Chhavni District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - B.S.B.Company Private Limited Through Shukam Adhikari ,b.S B.K.Private Limited Nandani Road Bhilai District, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. Both these appeals, MAC No. 1798/2018 and MAC No. 1780/2018, arise out of the same motor vehicular accident dated 15.06.2017, involving the same offending vehicle, parties, and set of circumstances. Since the facts, evidence, and questions of law involved in both appeals are identical and interconnected, they were heard together analogously. In the interest of judicial propriety and to avoid repetition of facts and findings, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, which shall govern and apply equally to both cases. 2. These appeal have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned 6th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Cases No. 529/2017 and 528/2017. 4 3. The averment in this appeals, in brief, are that on 15.06.2017, at approximately 10:30 a.m., a tragic motor vehicle accident occurred near Chawni Square, in front of S.S. Hospital, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). On that fateful morning, one Mr. Ashok Prasad Gupta was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-07/LR/9474, with his wife Meena Devi Gupta seated as a pillion rider. The couple was proceeding towards the Powerhouse area when, on reaching near Chawni Square, a Hywa vehicle (heavy truck) bearing registration number CG-07/C/6301, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind at high speed and violently dashed into the motorcycle. Due to the forceful impact, both the motorcycle and its riders were thrown onto the road and came under the front wheel of the Hywa vehicle, resulting in their instantaneous death on the spot. The horrific accident created a scene of great distress, and soon after, local persons informed the concerned Police Station about the incident. On receiving the information, the police immediately visited the spot, conducted necessary formalities, and registered a criminal case bearing Crime No. 327/2017 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the driver of the offending Hywa vehicle for causing death by negligence. 4. After completing the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Criminal Court, initiating criminal prosecution against the said driver for the alleged negligent act which caused the untimely demise of both deceased persons. Subsequent to the tragic accident, the legal representatives of the deceased couple approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Raipur (C.G.) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking just 5 compensation for the loss caused due to the fatal accident. 5. In MAC Case No. 1798/2018, the major sons, daughter, and father of deceased Ashok Prasad Gupta filed their claim petition, praying for an award of Rs. 69,94,334/- as compensation against the Owner, Driver, and Insurance Company of the offending Hywa vehicle. Similarly, in MAC Case No. 1780/2018, the major sons, daughter, and father-in-law of deceased Meena Devi Gupta filed an identical claim petition seeking Rs. 69,94,334/- against the same respondents. 6. Upon being summoned by the learned Tribunal, the Driver and Owner of the Hywa vehicle appeared and filed their written statements denying the allegations. They contended that no such accident involving their vehicle had ever taken place with the motorcycle in question. Alternatively, they claimed that even if the accident were assumed to have occurred, the vehicle in question was being driven by a duly licensed driver who possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. They further asserted that the Hywa vehicle was insured under a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident, and therefore, any liability arising out of the accident should be indemnified by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, appearing as the third respondent, filed its reply denying its liability to indemnify the claimants. It took multiple defenses, stating primarily that the offending Hywa vehicle was plying on the road without a valid road permit and fitness certificate. Furthermore, the insurer alleged that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive such a heavy transport vehicle at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company contended that despite being aware of these deficiencies, the owner of the vehicle had knowingly permitted the 6 unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle, thereby violating the conditions of the policy. Additionally, the insurer disputed the age, occupation, and income of the deceased persons, asserting that the claimants had not furnished any credible documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged income figures and had claimed an exorbitantly high amount of compensation. On these grounds, the insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions or, in the alternative, sought that its liability be absolved. 7. After considering the rival pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, framed five distinct issues (as reflected in paragraph 7 of the award) for determination, which included whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hywa vehicle; whether the deceased persons died as a result of the said accident; whether the offending vehicle was insured and the policy valid at the time; whether the driver possessed a valid driving licence and vehicle had valid permit/fitness; and what amount of compensation, if any, were the claimants entitled to receive and from whom. 8. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The claimants produced witnesses to establish the negligent act of the Hywa driver, the relationship of the deceased with the claimants, and the income and dependency of the family on the deceased couple. On the other hand, the respondents (Driver, Owner, and Insurance Company) cross-examined the witnesses and placed reliance upon documentary evidence to challenge liability, validity of the permit, and driving licence. Upon thorough consideration of the materials on record and the arguments advanced, the learned Tribunal 7 partly allowed the claim applications, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Hywa driver, and that both deceased died in consequence thereof. The Tribunal accordingly awarded compensation in favor of the claimants, though not for the entire amount claimed, but for a substantial part thereof. However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeals (MAC Nos. 1798/2018 and 1780/2018) primarily assailing the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and reiterating its defenses regarding absence of valid permit, fitness certificate, and effective driving licence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the impugned awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, suffer from serious legal infirmities and errors of appreciation of evidence, resulting in an excessive, unjust, and unsustainable quantum of compensation. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has mechanically accepted unsubstantiated claims of income advanced by the claimants without any cogent evidence, relying solely upon self- declared statements of income, which cannot be treated as reliable proof under the Motor Vehicles Act. Elaborating further, learned counsel submitted that in both claim petitions, the learned Tribunal had wrongly worked out the income of the deceased persons by relying on Exhibits P-7 to P-11 in the case of deceased Meena Devi Gupta and Exhibits P-10 to P-14 in the case of deceased Ashok Prasad Gupta, overlooking the fact that all these documents were nothing more than self-declarations of income voluntarily made by the deceased persons themselves and not verified or accepted by the Income Tax 8 Department. These documents were not based on any statutory assessment, nor were they supported by any corroborative evidence, such as audited financial records, trade licences, business registrations, or bank statements. It is submitted that under the settled principles of law, a self-declaration made to the Income Tax Department cannot, by itself, constitute proof of income unless it is substantiated by independent and credible evidence. The Tribunal, by accepting such unverified documents as proof of income, has acted beyond legal parameters and has thereby inflated the multiplicand, leading to an exaggerated computation of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that both deceased individuals were claimed to be self-employed persons, the husband (Ashok Prasad Gupta) as a grocery shop owner and the wife (Meena Devi Gupta) as an operator of a mess/catering service, but in neither case was there any legal or documentary substantiation of such business activity. No licence from the Food Department, no registration under the Commercial Tax or Food Safety Act, no shop establishment certificate, no trade licence, no purchase or sales records, nor any rent or electricity bills indicating commercial activity were produced before the learned Tribunal. The claimants also failed to produce any witness, such as a customer, supplier, or employee, who could testify to the operation of the alleged business. Thus, there was complete absence of cogent, admissible, and corroborative evidence to support the claim of independent business income. Despite this, the learned Tribunal, without assigning any valid reasoning, proceeded to accept the self- declared income figures as genuine, which is contrary to the well- established evidentiary standards followed in motor accident claim 9 proceedings. It was also contended that the income declared in those self-declarations showed a gradual increase over the years, but even those figures were below the taxable threshold, which itself indicates that the deceased persons were not assessed to income tax. Therefore, the reliance of Tribunal on such documents was wholly misplaced. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that when income of a person is not substantiated by independent records or by tax assessment, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally, in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, rather than accepting self- declared income at its face value. The approach of Tribunal, it was submitted, was arbitrary, presumptive, and devoid of evidentiary basis, leading to a serious miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the appellant further assailed the finding of the Tribunal in relation to future prospects. It was submitted that both deceased individuals were self- employed and allegedly engaged in small-scale businesses without any record of stable or permanent income. The Tribunal, however, mechanically applied the principle of addition towards future prospects as if the deceased were in permanent salaried employment. Such addition, in the absence of proof of steady income, was legally impermissible and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and other subsequent judgments, which mandate that addition towards future prospects is justified only when there is demonstrable regularity and continuity of earnings. In the present cases, there was no such evidence, and the addition by Tribunal of a substantial percentage towards future prospects has artificially inflated the 10 quantum of compensation. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal committed further error in determining dependency and deductions. In the case of Smt. Meena Devi Gupta, the Tribunal wrongly treated the father-in-law (Claimant No. 4) as a dependent, even though there was no evidence on record to show that he was financially dependent upon the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be inferred merely from relationship. A father-in-law, being an aged person, may have been dependent upon his own son but not necessarily upon his daughter-in-law. By treating him as a dependent, the Tribunal erroneously increased the number of dependents, which in turn reduced the deduction for personal and living expenses, leading to an inflated computation of loss of dependency. It was further argued that in such factual context, only one dependent (the daughter) could have been reasonably considered, and therefore 50% deduction ought to have been made towards personal expenses, which would have substantially reduced the award. The failure of Tribunal to apply correct principles of dependency assessment has rendered the award erroneous and excessive. 10. With regard to the imposition of penal interest, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding penal interest on the compensation amount. It was argued that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for payment of interest on compensation as determined, but there is no statutory provision empowering the Tribunal to impose penal or punitive interest. In the present cases, there was no deliberate delay, default, or contumacious conduct on the part of the Insurance Company; hence, 11 the direction for payment of penal interest is illegal, unjustified, and contrary to law. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the award of penal interest should therefore be set aside in toto. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Mamta Dahia & Others (MAC No. 192/2024, decided on 27.08.2024) and The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Daya Bai Maghvani & Others (MAC No. 808/2024, decided on 21.08.2025), wherein it has been categorically held that self-declarations of income without corroborative evidence cannot be treated as proof of actual earnings, and that the Tribunal must adopt a conservative and realistic approach while determining income in cases of self-employed persons without proper documentation. These judgments squarely apply to the present facts, and had the Tribunal followed such precedents, the awards would have been significantly lower and in consonance with the evidence on record. Hence, the learned counsel for appellant prays that both appeals be allowed, the impugned awards be modified and reduced appropriately, the imposition of penal interest be set aside, and the quantum of compensation be recalculated on the basis of realistic income assessment and proper dependency deduction, in the larger interest of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 / claimants, at the very outset, strongly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company. It was submitted that both these appeals, MAC No. 1798/2018 and MAC No. 1780/2018, arise from a single tragic motor vehicular accident dated 15.06.2017, which resulted 12 in the instantaneous death of both husband and wife, namely late Shri Ashok Prasad Gupta and late Smt. Meena Devi Gupta. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that the rash and negligent driving of the Hywa vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07/C/6301 has been conclusively established before the learned Tribunal by eyewitness testimony, FIR, spot map, post-mortem report, and the charge-sheet filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of the IPC. Thus, the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the Hywa driver are not in serious dispute and stand duly proved beyond doubt. In this view of the matter, the only limited issue before this Court is the justness of the compensation awarded, which, according to the claimants, is neither excessive nor unreasonable, but rather fair, equitable, and justified in light of the settled principles of law and the overwhelming evidence placed before the learned Tribunal. Elaborating further, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals primarily to minimize its lawful liability under the contract of indemnity, on untenable and hyper-technical grounds. The allegations regarding absence of valid permit, fitness certificate, and effective driving licence were raised before the learned Tribunal as well, but after detailed appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal categorically recorded a finding of fact that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant–Insurance Company under a valid and subsisting policy on the date of the accident, and that no cogent evidence was produced by the insurer to prove any violation of policy conditions. The burden to establish breach of statutory conditions rests squarely upon the insurer, and in the absence of 13 positive proof, such speculative defenses cannot be sustained. The Tribunal rightly held that once the insurer has admitted the existence of a valid policy, and failed to prove willful violation of its terms by the owner, the liability to indemnify the claimants automatically follows under Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The findings of the Tribunal on this aspect are thus based on sound reasoning, supported by evidence, and call for no interference. Addressing the submissions regarding the alleged absence of documentary proof of income, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently refuted the arguments advanced by the appellant. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly and judiciously relied upon the documentary exhibits produced by the claimants, namely Exhibits P-7 to P-11 in the case of deceased Meena Devi Gupta and Exhibits P-10 to P-14 in the case of deceased Ashok Prasad Gupta, along with oral evidence of family members and witnesses, to determine the annual income of the deceased persons. The Tribunal did not accept those self-declarations blindly, but rather assessed them in the light of surrounding facts, the nature of the deceased persons’ vocation, and the cost of living prevalent in the locality. The deceased husband and wife were both self-employed individuals, engaged in stable small-scale businesses, one operating a grocery shop and the other managing a mess and catering service. Their family was dependent upon their joint income, and they were living a modest, middle-class life. The documents produced, including income self- declarations and receipts relating to their respective businesses, sufficiently established the approximate income level. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation, intended to 14 ensure just and reasonable compensation to victims of road accidents and their families; hence, strict proof of income, as required in civil or tax proceedings, is not mandatory in claim proceedings under Section 166. The Tribunal’s reliance upon these documents, therefore, was neither misplaced nor illegal, but entirely in consonance with the object and spirit of the law. The learned counsel further submitted that the argument of the Insurance Company that “self-declared income statements cannot be treated as reliable proof” is unsustainable in the context of claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was emphasized that claim proceedings are summary in nature and are guided by the principle of preponderance of probability, not by the technicalities of strict evidence law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions such as Ramesh Chand v. Randhir Singh (2018 ACJ 2550), Kusum Lata v. Satbir (2011) 3 SCC 646, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, has categorically held that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is liberal and that loss of life or income cannot be measured by rigid proof, especially when the deceased was self-employed. In such cases, the Tribunal is bound to make a reasonable and pragmatic assessment based on the materials available and the socio-economic background of the deceased. The Tribunal, in the present case, has done precisely that by drawing a rational inference regarding income from the documents and oral testimony adduced, which fully meets the evidentiary standard required in such proceedings. Therefore, the criticism of the Insurance Company regarding the Tribunal’s assessment of income is devoid of merit. Regarding the addition towards future prospects, learned counsel for the claimants submitted 15 that the Tribunal has acted strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The said judgment expressly holds that self-employed persons are also entitled to addition towards future prospects to the extent of 25% (for persons below 50 years of age), recognizing that even self-employed individuals experience growth in income over time. The deceased couple, being active, industrious, and in the prime of their working years, had every reasonable expectation of progressive increase in income with age and experience. Hence, the Tribunal’s addition of future prospects was lawfully justified and in harmony with judicial precedent. The Insurance Company’s argument that self-employed persons are excluded from such addition is contrary to settled law and reflects a misreading of the ratio in Pranay Sethi (supra). The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal’s finding on dependency was also proper and based on the evidence. In the case of deceased Smt. Meena Devi Gupta, the Tribunal rightly treated the father-in-law (Claimant No. 4) as a dependent, taking into account his age, health, and financial status. The evidence on record established that the deceased daughter-in-law, Meena Devi, was actively contributing to the household expenses and the care of her elderly father-in-law, particularly after her husband (Ashok Prasad Gupta) assumed business responsibilities. Dependency in law is not confined to financial dependence alone, but includes moral, emotional, and domestic dependence, as held in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643. Therefore, the Tribunal’s treatment of the father-in-law as a dependent is in keeping with the liberal and 16 humanitarian interpretation of the term “legal representative” under Section 166 of the Act. The Insurance Company’s argument to exclude him from dependency is hyper-technical and unsympathetic to the social realities of Indian family life. On the issue of interest, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal’s direction for payment of interest, including penal interest in case of delay, is fully justified and well within its jurisdiction. The provision for interest is intended to compensate claimants for the delay in receiving monetary relief, which is often the only source of sustenance for bereaved families. In the present case, the Insurance Company has protracted the proceedings unnecessarily by raising frivolous objections and technical defenses, causing undue hardship to the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, exercised its discretion judiciously by awarding interest at a rate meant to ensure timely compliance. It is not penal in the strict sense, but compensatory in nature, designed to prevent the insurer from unduly retaining the awarded amount. The claimants thus submit that there is no illegality in the grant of such interest, and the appellant’s prayer to set it aside deserves outright rejection. Finally, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the impugned awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, are well-reasoned, evidence-based, and in strict conformity with the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is to provide just and adequate compensation to the victims and their dependents. The awards neither suffer from excessiveness nor from any illegality warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. On the contrary, the sums awarded are modest and reasonable, considering that both deceased individuals were the breadwinners of their family and their untimely demise has left 17 the claimants in a state of emotional and financial devastation. The compensation awarded is not a windfall but a just recompense for the irreparable loss of life, companionship, and support. In conclusion, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 / claimants humbly prayed that both these appeals filed by the Insurance Company are devoid of merit and substance, and are liable to be dismissed in limine. The findings of the learned Tribunal on negligence, income assessment, future prospects, dependency, and interest are based on sound reasoning and settled law, and thus deserve to be upheld in their entirety. The counsel also urged this Hon’ble Court to discourage repeated challenges by insurers on flimsy grounds which defeat the beneficial object of the statute and delay justice to the victims’ families. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the record with utmost circumspection. 13. It is an admitted fact that both matters arise from the same motor vehicular accident dated 15.06.2017, which resulted in the unfortunate and untimely demise of husband and wife, Late Shri Ashok Prasad Gupta and Late Smt. Meena Devi Gupta. The issues raised, the evidence adduced, and the legal questions involved in both appeals are identical and interconnected. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the common award dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned 6th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Cases No. 529/2017 and 528/2017. The challenge is primarily directed against the quantum of compensation awarded in favor of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4), as well as the imposition of what is described as “penal interest.” 18 The appellant disputes the income assessment of the deceased persons, the addition of future prospects, and the determination of dependency. 14. The first and foremost issue pertains to the factum of accident and the involvement of the Hywa vehicle bearing registration number CG-07/C/6301. On perusal of the FIR (Ex. P-1), spot map (Ex. P-3), charge-sheet (Ex. P-5), and the post-mortem reports (Ex. P-6 & P-7), this Court finds no dispute that the said vehicle was indeed involved in the accident, and that both deceased individuals succumbed to injuries caused by the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The appellant– Insurance Company has not been able to dislodge this finding. The evidence of eyewitnesses, coupled with the official police investigation culminating in a charge-sheet under Section 304-A IPC, leaves no manner of doubt that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the Hywa driver. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal on the issues of negligence and causal connection are affirmed. The liability of the appellant–Insurance Company to indemnify the claimants, being the insurer of the offending vehicle under a valid policy, also stands confirmed, as no cogent evidence has been adduced to establish any breach of policy conditions under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. The principal ground of challenge by the Insurance Company relates to the alleged lack of proof regarding the income of the deceased persons. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon self-declared income statements (Exhibits P-7 to P-11 in case of Meena Devi and P-10 to P-14 in case of Ashok Prasad) which were not supported by corroborative documents such as tax returns, trade 19 licences, or business records. This Court, however, finds that the approach of Tribunal in assessing income was consistent with the settled principles governing claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Proceedings before the MACT are summary in nature and guided by the principle of preponderance of probability, not by the strict standards of proof applicable in civil suits or income tax assessments. The deceased persons were self-employed individuals engaged in modest but steady occupations, the husband as a grocery shop owner and the wife as a mess and catering service operator. The claimants supported these assertions through oral testimony and certain documentary materials reflecting self-declared income and business receipts. The Tribunal, taking into account the socio-economic background of the deceased, the nature of their avocation, and the cost of living in Raipur, reasonably inferred their approximate monthly income. The object of the Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial and compensatory, such liberal interpretation is fully justified. 16. On the issue of addition of future prospects, the appellant contends that since the deceased persons were self-employed, such addition was impermissible. This submission is misconceived. The law on the point is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has categorically held that self- employed persons and those on fixed salaries are also entitled to an addition of 25% towards future prospects if they are below 50 years of age, recognizing the universal tendency of income to increase over time. Both deceased individuals, being in the prime of their working life, had every reasonable expectation of progressive growth in 20 earnings. The addition of future prospects by the Tribunal was thus squarely in line with the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra) and other subsequent judgments. There is no illegality or excess in this regard. 17. The grievance of appellant regarding dependency, particularly in the case of deceased Smt. Meena Devi Gupta, also deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal had treated her father-in-law (Claimant No. 4) as a dependent, relying upon evidence indicating that he was elderly and financially supported by the deceased couple. Dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act is not confined merely to monetary support; it also encompasses moral, emotional, and domestic dependence, as held in the matter of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643. Given the traditional family structure and interdependent living arrangements in Indian households, the finding of Tribunal that the father-in-law was a dependent cannot be said to be perverse. The consequent deduction for personal and living expenses was computed correctly in accordance with the number of dependents, and thus calls for no modification. 18. Regarding the contention about the so-called “penal interest,” this Court finds that the Tribunal had merely directed that the awarded sum shall carry interest at the prescribed rate and that delayed payment beyond the stipulated period would attract a higher rate. Such a direction is not punitive but compensatory in nature, meant to ensure timely compliance and prevent undue delay in disbursal. The Tribunal acted within its discretion under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the prolonged litigation and financial hardship suffered by the bereaved family, the interest awarded cannot be considered excessive or unjustified. The challenge of appellant on this ground is accordingly 21 rejected. 19. Upon overall consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is neither excessive nor arbitrary. On the contrary, it represents a just and reasonable recompense for the grievous loss suffered by the claimants. The death of both earning members of the family has left behind dependents who have endured severe financial and emotional deprivation. The awards granted are thus in consonance with the principle of just compensation envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and no interference is warranted merely on the ground of marginal variations or theoretical perfection in calculation. 20. The above view finds support from the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vishnu Ganga and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182, wherein it was held as under : “13. K Ramya (supra)[K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338], wherein it was, inter alia, held as below, also supports the case put forth by the appellants: ‘11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of ‘just’ compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is a settled proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasized that 22 compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad-based approach unlike damages as noted by this court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.. The discussion in the abovementioned cases highlights that Tribunals under the Act have been granted reasonable flexibility in determining ‘just’ compensation and are not bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards to compute loss unlike in the case of damages. Hence, any interference by the Appellate Courts should ordinarily be allowed only when the compensation is ‘exorbitant’ or ‘arbitrary’. 12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in the future. Keeping the abovementioned principles in the backdrop, we now move on to the facts at hand.” 21. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced by the appellant–Insurance Company. The findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, on all material issues, namely negligence, income assessment, 23 future prospects, dependency, and interest, are based on sound reasoning, supported by evidence, and consistent with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22. Accordingly, both MAC No. 1798/2018 and MAC No. 1780/2018 are dismissed. 23. The impugned award dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned 6th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, is hereby affirmed in toto. The appellant–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants in accordance with the apportionment already determined, ensuring due compliance with statutory safeguards regarding investment, if applicable. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 11.09.2025 19.11.2025 - 19.11.2025