1 2025:CGHC:60652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 530 of 2017 1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Sri Ram Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer/ Non-Applicant No.3, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Sagar Wd/o Late Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lucky Sagar S/o Late Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Sunita Sagar, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prince Sagar S/o Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Sunita Sagar, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shankar Lal Sagar S/o Late Horilal Sagar, Aged About 73 Years R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Smt. Dhanbai @ Dhaniya Bai Sagar W/o Shankar Lal Sagar, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Durga Prasad Gupta S/o Ramcharan Gupta, Aged About 52 Years R/o Sai Chowk, Chantidih, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Devi Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Baldau Prasad Sahu, R/o Birkona, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicants, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Claimants : Ms. Yamini Kosey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : None. MAC No. 1201 of 2017 1 - Smt. Sunita Sagar Wd/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lucky Sagar S/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 13 Years No. 2 And 3 Are Minor, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prince Sagar Late Shri Anil Kumar Sagar, Aged About 5 Years No. 2 And 3 Are Minor, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Dhanbai @ Dhaniya Bai Sagar W/o Shankar Lal Sagar, R/o Near Verma Paan Center, Near Old Power House, Devridih Torwa, 3 Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Shanker Lal Sagar Died, Hence Not Impleaded As A Appellant In The Array Of Cause Title. ................ Claimants. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Durga Prasad Gupta S/o Ramchandra Gupta, Aged About 52 Years R/o Sai Chowk Chantidih Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Driver Of The Offending Motorcycle Beraring Registration No. C. G. 10 - E B - 9267, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devi Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Baldau Prasad Sahu, R/o Birkona, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Owner Of The Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C. G. 10 - E B - 9267, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Shri Ram Trade Centre, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of The Offending Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C. G. 10 - E B - 9267, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Yamini Kosey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/12/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 19.01.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 530 of 2017 4 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 1201 of 2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 427/14. MAC No. 530/2017 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant/respondents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 24,04,500/- from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the appellant under various heads, contending that on 24.12.2012 the deceased Anil Kumar, while returning from his in- laws’ village Lormi to his hometown Bilaspur on his motorcycle, met with an accident near Amne Turn when he was allegedly hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-EB-9267 coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment; however, as per the immediate information, the deceased himself had collided with a tree causing the accident, and subsequently on 01.02.2013 an FIR was lodged by Rohit Kumar Gandharv against the said motorcycle; it was further alleged that a false, fabricated and concocted case was set up by the claimants by suppressing material facts and wrongly impleading the owner and driver of the said vehicle to secure compensation, and after filing of the charge-sheet by the police, the claim petition was instituted on 19.09.2013 before the Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur; that after service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 5 and 2, being in collusion, took the defence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and that their vehicle was not involved, and the insurance company also pleaded that the accident did not occur due to the offending vehicle and moved an application to summon the driver and owner of the vehicle as witnesses, which was rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal; and that by the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,13,500/- in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability upon the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the impugned award is perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case; that the vehicle bearing No. C.G.-10-EB-9267 was not involved in the alleged accident at all and a false, forged, and fabricated case has been set up by the claimants against the driver and owner of the said vehicle only to secure compensation; that the First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than one month from the date of the alleged accident, which itself casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim; that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to afford proper opportunity to the appellant to establish its defence and further erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant–insurance company for summoning the driver and owner of the motorcycle bearing No. C.G.-10-EB-9267, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair chance 6 to prove its case; that as per the newspaper report, the accident occurred due to the deceased colliding with a tree and no other vehicle was involved; and that the appellant–insurance company reserves its right to raise additional grounds at the time of final hearing. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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. None for respondents No. 6 & 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant–insurance company. The learned Claims Tribunal has duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has recorded a well-reasoned finding holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing No. CG-10-EB-9267, resulting in the death of Anil Kumar. Mere delay in lodging the FIR, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not sufficient to disbelieve the claim, particularly when the Tribunal has found the version of 7 the claimants to be reliable and trustworthy. The contention that the accident occurred due to the deceased colliding with a tree and that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal, and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court. The rejection of the application for summoning the driver and owner does not cause any prejudice to the appellant, as the burden to prove non-involvement of the vehicle was not discharged. The compensation awarded is just, reasonable and in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the appeal (MAC No. 530/2017) filed by the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1201/2017 9. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 24.12.2012 the deceased Anil Kumar Sagar was returning from his in-laws’ village at Lormi to his hometown Bilaspur on his motorcycle, and when he reached near Amnetar within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kota, a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-EB-9267 came from the Kota side, which was being driven by Non-Applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, and due to such rash and negligent driving, the said motorcycle dashed against the motorcycle being driven by Anil Kumar Sagar, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and subsequently died; that due to the sudden demise of Anil Kumar Sagar, his wife, children, father and mother 8 filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 24,04,500/-, pleading that the deceased was working as a Manager in Singh Associates, Bilaspur, and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month; that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply contending that the vehicle was being plied under coercion and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, however, on 10.11.2015 they were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal; that Respondent No. 3 (insurer) filed its reply alleging that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the award; and that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues and decided them in favour of the appellants, however, awarded compensation which was not satisfactory, thereby necessitating the filing of the present Miscellaneous Appeal (C). 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 13,500/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 40,500/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 29 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,88,500/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total 9 compensation of Rs. 7,13,500/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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 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. 13. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 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. 16. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 10 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 17. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 4,646/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 55,752/- 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. 22,301/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 78,053/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 29 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 19,513/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 58,540/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 11 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,95,180/-. 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. (40,000X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,71,180/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,95,180/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X5+10% +10%). Rs. 2,40,000/- 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. 12,71,180/- 12 19.Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,71,180/-. After deducting Rs. 7,13,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 5,57,680/-. 20. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1201/2017) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,57,680/- 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