1 2025:CGHC:58271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 732 of 2018 1 - Vikaram Singh S/o S/o Ranmat Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bhada Thana Pali Tahsil Pali District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rama Bai W/o W/o Vikaram Singh Tavar Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bhada Thana Pali Tahsil Pali District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Ishwari S/o D/o Vikaram Singh Tavar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bhada Thana Pali Tahsil Pali District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Malikram S/o S/o Satnarayan Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Sukulpara Kharoud Thana Shivrinarayan District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ..............Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C. G. 11 D. A./2478). .........Driver., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o S/o Gowardhan Sharma, Aged About 50 Years R/o Kewat Mandir Shivrinarayan Thana Shivrinarayan District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ...........Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C. G. 11 D. A. / 2478)., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Branch Manager, Megma H. D. I. Generqal Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, S. I. C. L. In Front Of Head Office Seepat Road Sarkand Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Insurer., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. MAC No. 876 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Litd. Branch Office In Front Of S. E. C. L. Head Office Seepat Road Bilaspur, P. S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Through- Branch Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. Office No. 501, 509 5th Floor D . B. City Corporate Park Block No. 09, Rajbandha Ground Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Vikram Singh S/o Ranmat Singh Tanwar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Bhada, P. S. And Tahsil- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ramabai, W/o Vikram Singh Tanwar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Bhada, P. S. And Tahsil- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Ishwari, W/o Vikram Singh Tanwar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Bhada, P. S. And Tahsil- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Malikram, W/o Satnarayan Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Sukulpara Kharoud, P. S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 5 - Vijay Kumar Sharma, W/o Govardhan Sharma, R/o Kenwat Mandir Shivrinarayan, P. S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Prabhat Saxena, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 5.2.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 876 of 2018 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 732 of 2018 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 5.2.2018 passed by the learned 4th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 293/16. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellants/claimants, being the unfortunate mother, father and sister of deceased Vishwanath Pratap Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that on 16.03.2016 at about 6:15 a.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle with his friend as pillion while travelling from Village Salkhan towards Kharoud, and upon reaching near Village Kharoud Mod Road, Thana Sivirinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, respondent No. 1, driving a tractor 4 bearing registration No. CG-11/DA/2478 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the motorcycle, causing the deceased grievous injuries on his head, hand and chest, following which he was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he succumbed during treatment; a report was lodged at Thana Sivirinarayan, leading to registration of a criminal case under Section 304A IPC (Criminal Case No. 58/2016). The claimants pleaded that the deceased, aged about 27 years, was employed as a Constable in the CRPF earning Rs. 20,000 per month and sought total compensation of Rs. 55,50,000 from the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner, filed a written statement contending that the claim amount was excessive and that the vehicle was duly insured, making the insurer liable, while respondent No. 3, Magma HDI General Insurance Company, alleged breach of policy conditions and also disputed the quantum. In support of their case, the claimants examined five witnesses including eye-witnesses Vikram Singh Tawar (AW-1) and Vijay Kumar (AW-2), proving the age, employment and income of the deceased; whereas the insurer examined three witnesses but failed to establish any breach of policy conditions. The appellants submit that the assessment of compensation made by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and the evidence on record. 3. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,372/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,20,464/- per annum. After deduction 5 of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 1,10,232/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,10,232/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 27 years and the appellants/claimants are the mother, father and sister of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 18,73,944/-. Further Rs. 70,000/- towards other heads has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 19,43,944/- in favour of the mother, father and sister of the deceased with interest @ 8.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,43,944/- 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. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material available on record. 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 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,372/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 18,372/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,20,464/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,10,232/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 3,30,696/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 27 years and the appellant/claimants are the mother, father and sister of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 1,65,348/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,65,348/-. 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 7 Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 28,10,916/-. 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. (40,000/X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. mother, father and sister of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 29,90,916/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 28,10,916/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 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. 29,90,916/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 29,90,916/-. 8 After deducting Rs. 19,43,944/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 10,46,972/-. 13. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 732/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. mother, father and sister of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,46,972/- 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. MAC No. 876/2018 14. Brief facts of the case, is that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, who are the parents and sibling of the deceased Vishwanath Pratap Singh, seeking compensation for his death. The claimants pleaded that the deceased, posted as a Constable at Bhatgoon Chowki, was travelling on 16.03.2016 to serve a summon at Village Salkhan along with his friend, and when they reached near Kharoud turning, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No. CG 11 DA 2478 with trolley No. CG 11 DA 2479, driving in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased, causing multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death on the spot. The claimants further submitted that the deceased was employed as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police 9 Department earning Rs. 20,000 per month, and therefore sought compensation of Rs. 55,50,000/-. Respondents No. 1 and 2, in their joint reply, denied all adverse allegations and asserted that the deceased himself was negligent. The present appellant/insurance company also filed its reply, disputing the claim and specifically pleading that the deceased was negligent, that the insured vehicle was not involved and had been falsely implicated by the police only to secure compensation, and that at the time of accident the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit or fitness certificate, amounting to violation of policy conditions. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred in the middle of the road due to a head-on collision between two vehicles, one of which was driven by the deceased, thereby making him contributorily negligent. It is noteworthy that although the accident took place on 16.03.2016, the FIR was lodged on 17.03.2016 at Police Station Shivrinarayan by Constable Yadram Netam against the driver of a red Mahindra Tractor 8-275 DI identified only through its engine number, as no registration number was mentioned; the FIR also stated that the driver fled the spot leaving the tractor abandoned. However, the seizure of the tractor and trolley bearing registration Nos. CG 11 DA 2478 and CG 11 DA 2479 was made only on 22.03.2016 upon their production by the owner. According to the appellant, the entire story regarding the accident and involvement of the insured vehicle was 10 concocted and an afterthought to claim compensation, particularly as the FIR did not mention the registration number and the vehicle was not seized from the spot on the same day. Despite these inconsistencies and the evidence produced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the material on record, wrongly fastened liability upon the appellant. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous both on facts and in law, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Mahindra Tractor bearing Engine No. 00650543901-DN 11RL14, alleged to be involved in the accident, was never insured with the present appellant, and that the engine and chassis numbers mentioned in the FIR are entirely different from those of the insured tractor bearing Registration No. CG-11-DA-2478 (Engine No. RFNV0068; Chassis No. FRVN00668) and trolley CG-11-D-2479 (Chassis No. JA0951213). It is contended that the FIR itself states that the tractor was lying abandoned at the spot and its driver had absconded, and the registration number was not noted on the date of the incident; yet the police did not seize any vehicle from the spot on the same day and later seized the insured vehicle only on 22.03.2016, six days after the occurrence, solely on the presentation of the owner, thereby falsely implicating the insured tractor to secure compensation, as the deceased was a Constable in the Police Department. Counsel argues that the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle is an 11 afterthought, fabricated, and concocted, and the Tribunal committed a grave error in relying upon the testimony of AW-2, the so-called eyewitness, whose statement is materially contradictory to the FIR, especially when the FIR does not mention any vehicle number, whereas AW-2 claims that the tractor CG-11-DA-2478 and trolley CG-11-DA-2479 hit the motorcycle and that the number was written on the tractor. It is submitted that documentary evidence must prevail over such unreliable oral testimony, and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition in view of the mismatch of engine and chassis numbers and the fact that the vehicle actually referred to in the FIR—Mahindra B-275 with Engine No. 00650543901-DN 11RL14—was neither owned nor insured by the appellant. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that mentioning a wrong engine number makes no difference, although the identity of every vehicle is precisely determined by its engine and chassis number, and also failed to consider the plea that the deceased himself was solely negligent and that the insured tractor and trolley were not at all involved in the accident. The appellant, therefore, reserves its right to raise additional grounds during the course of further proceedings. 16. None for respondents No. 1 to 3. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 opposes the same. 12 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. Having carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence and pleadings on record, this Court finds no substance in the grounds urged for assailing the impugned award. The appellant has failed to establish any material irregularity, perversity, or legal infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal, which had duly appreciated the circumstances surrounding the accident, the nature of the evidence, and the liability of the parties. The contentions relating to alleged mismatch of engine and chassis numbers, delay in seizure of the vehicle, and purported false implication were neither substantiated by cogent evidence nor sufficient to dislodge the prima facie reliability of the investigation and the testimony relied upon by the Tribunal. The plea of contributory negligence of the deceased also remained unproved. The Tribunal, upon sound reasoning and proper evaluation of both documentary and oral evidence, reached a conclusion that does not warrant appellate interference. 20. Consequently, the appeal (MAC No. 876/2018) filed by the insurance company is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat