1 2025:CGHC:60406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1471 of 2017 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through , Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba Tehsil And Distrcit Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shantibai W/o Late Chamra Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mudabhata Jenjra Tehsil - Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. Claimants, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manisha Kumari D/o Late Chamra Singh Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Gaurdian Mother Smt. Shantibai , R/o Village Mudabhata Jenjra Tehsil - Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Atul Singh S/o Late Chamra Singh Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Gaurdian Mother Smt. Shantibai , R/o Village Mudabhata Jenjra Tehsil - Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. Claimants , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamal Kenvat S/o Gopal Kenvat Aged About 33 Years R/o Chekpost Bhadrapara Balko Thana Balko, Present E/o Ward No. 10 , Pump House Colony Police Chowky C S E B Chowk Korba Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. Vihicle Driver , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 5 - Har Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Shriniwas Agrawal R/o G. E. Road, Tatibandh Raipur Chhattisgarh Present R/o Plot No. 197, Near To Balaji Pretrol , T. P. Nagar Korba Police Chowky - C S E B Chowk Korba Thana And Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. Vehicle Owner, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 83/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 21.12.2013 at about 3:50 PM, the deceased Chamra Singh was travelling as a pillion rider on a Bullet motorcycle which was being driven by Budhram. While they were proceeding on their journey, suddenly a Truck/Trailer bearing registration number CG- 04-JA-6379 came from the opposite direction and violently dashed into the said motorcycle, resulting in both the rider Budhram and 3 the pillion rider Chamra Singh sustaining fatal injuries and dying on the spot. Thereafter, the legal heirs of deceased Chamra Singh filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which came to be allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal. During the course of the claim proceedings, the appellant–Insurance Company moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking production of the permit and fitness certificate of the offending trailer, but the owner and driver failed to produce these documents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal then appointed a Commissioner to record the statement of the concerned RTO authority, and accordingly the Commissioner recorded the statement of Shri Animesh Kumar Tandan, an employee of RTO Raipur, who categorically stated that no fitness certificate had been issued for the offending trailer during the relevant period. The seizure memo prepared by the police also reflected non-submission of any fitness certificate. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal returned a clear finding that the offending trailer did not possess a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Under the conventional heads, however, the Tribunal awarded an allegedly excessive amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-, and assessed dependency compensation at Rs. 3,36,000/-, thereby granting a total compensation of Rs. 5,61,000/-, which is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submits that submits that the impugned award is unsustainable as the offending Trailer/Truck No. CG-04-JA-6379 did not possess a 4 valid permit or fitness certificate at the time of the accident, and therefore the insurer cannot be saddled with liability. It is contended that during the trial the Insurance Company had moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking production of the fitness and permit documents, but despite service, the owner and driver failed to produce either document before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction, a Commissioner was appointed to record the statement of the RTO, and the Commissioner obtained the evidence of Shri Animesh Kumar Tandan, an employee of RTO Raipur, who clearly stated that no fitness certificate had been issued for the offending trailer for the relevant period. The seizure memo prepared by the police likewise revealed that no fitness certificate was ever produced. The Tribunal itself recorded a categorical finding that the vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident; hence fastening liability upon the insurer is contrary to law. It is further submitted that since the collision occurred between the trailer and the Bullet motorcycle, the Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of contributory negligence, but failed to do so, which calls for correction by this Hon’ble Court. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding an excessive amount under the conventional heads to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-, and even the dependency compensation of Rs. 3,36,000/-, culminating in a total of Rs. 5,61,000/-, requires reconsideration. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for setting aside the award dated 5 04.07.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 83/2014, exonerating the appellant–Insurance Company from liability, and directing reimbursement of any sum already paid in compliance of court orders. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3 – claimants has filed cross objection to the appeal and has submitted that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 04.07.2017 is misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the finding of liability recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is fully justified and calls for no interference. On the contrary, the claimants have filed cross- objections seeking enhancement of compensation, submitting that the Tribunal committed grave error in not awarding future prospects, despite the deceased being self-employed and working as a skilled labourer, thereby entitling the dependents to an appropriate addition to the income as per settled law. It is further contended that the claimants had clearly pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is neither excessive nor extraordinary, yet the Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the income at a meagre Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is illegal and contrary to the prevailing notional income norms, where even the notional income for an unskilled worker is taken at Rs. 4,800/- per month. The Tribunal further erred in failing to award just compensation towards loss of estate and awarded inadequate amounts under the conventional heads, resulting in an unfairly low 6 computation. In view of these infirmities, learned counsel prays that the cross-objection of the claimants be allowed, and the compensation be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company and upon careful appreciation of the entire material available on record, this Court finds no substance in the plea raised by the appellant–Insurance Company regarding the alleged absence of a valid permit and fitness certificate. Although the Insurance Company moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking production of the relevant documents and the owner and driver did not furnish the same before the Tribunal, the subsequent material collected during the proceedings does not support the insurer’s contention. The Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal recorded the statement of the concerned RTO employee, and though the witness stated that no fitness certificate was found issued for the relevant period, the Insurance Company has failed to establish, either through cogent evidence or through the terms of the policy, that absence of fitness would automatically absolve the insurer from liability. Rather, the record clearly reflects that the vehicle was otherwise duly permitted to ply, and nothing has been brought on record to show that the policy contained any stipulation that would render it ineffective or void for want of a fitness certificate. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that no breach of policy conditions had been proved so as to warrant exoneration of the 7 insurer. 6. Insofar as the other grounds urged, including the plea of contributory negligence, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any perversity or legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The assessment made by the Tribunal is based on the evidence placed before it and does not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction. The mere non- production of the fitness certificate, in the absence of a proven and substantive breach of the policy terms, cannot be a ground to upset the well-reasoned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 7. In view of the submissions advanced and upon careful consideration of the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant/insurance company has failed to substantiate its plea regarding the absence of a valid fitness certificate and permit, and the Tribunal has rightly held that no breach of policy conditions was proved; moreover, the record clearly demonstrates that the vehicle possessed the requisite permit, and the insurance policy contains no stipulation rendering it ineffective for want of fitness. 8. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal and there being no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the insurance company stands dismissed. 9. So far as the cross-appeal preferred by claimants / respondents No. 1 – 3 is concerned, upon meticulous examination of the evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that the 8 learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a meagre sum of Rs. 3,000/-. As per the Minimum Wages Notification applicable for the period 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014, the monthly wages for an unskilled labourer were Rs. 5,163/-. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is required to be recalculated on the basis of the statutory minimum wages, and the assessment made by the Tribunal warrants modification. It further emerges from the record that the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of the accident. In terms of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi and subsequent judgments, the claimants are entitled to 25% addition towards future prospects, which has not been awarded by the Tribunal. The omission to grant future prospects constitutes a clear legal error, and accordingly, the income must be recomputed after extending the benefit of 25% addition. As regards the deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the same at 1/3rd, the deceased having left behind three dependents, and the multiplier of 14 applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased is also appropriate and in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma. 10. 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. (supra), the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X3+10%+10%) each (with 9 increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. 11. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re-determines the compensation amounts as follows: Income 5,163 p.m. Annual Income 5,163 x 12 25% future Prospective (15,489/-) Personal Expenses(1/3) (25,815/-) Net Income Multiplier (x14) Loss of Income Rs. 61,956/- +15,489/- Rs. 77,445/- (-25,815) Rs. 51,630/- Rs. 7,22,820/- Loss of Consortirum @ Rs. 40,000/- per person (with an increase of 10% per 3 years) Rs.48,000/-x3 Rs. 1,44,000/- Funeral Expenses (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Estate (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 9,02,820/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,02,820/-. After deducting Rs. 5,61,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,41,820/-. 10 13. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,41,820/- 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. Thus, the cross-appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 / claimants is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to the extent indicated above. The rest of the findings of the learned Tribunal on quantum remain undisturbed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna