1 2025:CGHC:18411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 361 of 2019 1. Smt. Savita W/o Shri Santan Satnami Aged About 50 Years R/o Lakadiya, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Santan S/o Shri Khorbaahra Satnami Aged About 55 Years R/o Lakadiya, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dineshwar S/o Shri Santan Satnami Aged About 18 Years R/o Lakadiya, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Minor Diler Singh S/o Shri Santan Satnami Aged About 13 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Shri Santan S/o Khorbaahra Satnami, R/o Lakadiya, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 5. Minor Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Santan Satnami Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Shri Santan S/o Khorbaahra Satnami, R/o Lakadiya, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1. Toran Lal S/o Shri Tiju Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.28 18:27:48 +0530 2 Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ........… Driver Of Tractor No. C.G. 04-D-7471, Trolley No. C.G. 04DA-0471 2. Ganpat Yadav S/o Shri Thanwar Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Tipawan Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ...........Owner Of Tractor No. C.G. 04-D-7471, Trolley No. C.G. 04DA-0471. 3. The Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Road, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ........… Insurer Of Tractor No. C.G. 04-D- 7471, Trolley No. C.G. 04DA-0471 --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate MAC No. 1165 of 2019 Branch Manager The New India Insurance (Assurance) Company Ltd. Office Address Raipur Road Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Inda Bai W/o Johan Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Mukesh S/o Johan Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3. Toran Lal S/o Johan Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4. Toran Lal S/o Tiju Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar 3 Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor - Trolley Bearing No. CG 04 - D-7471 And Trolley No. CG 04-DA- 0471). 5. Ganpat Yadav S/o Thanwar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Tipawan, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Trolley Bearing No. CG 04 D-7471 And Trolley No. CG 04-DA-0471) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 25.10.2018 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. Nos. 112/2017 & H-118/2017, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal was that on 25.06.2017, deceased Johan Yadav was going from village Tipavan to Palari in the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CG 04D 7471 and Trolley No. CG 04DA 7471 driven by driver Toran Lal to bring fertilizers and seeds for agriculture work. Near village Lakadiya Palari, driver Toran Lal while driving the said Tractor rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Maheshwar Satnami causing an accident and the vehicle overturned. In the 4 accident, Johan Yadav who was travelling in the said Tractor, got crushed under the overturned tractor and died on the spot, while Maheshwar, who was riding the motorcycle, suffered grievous injuries on his head, eye, right leg and other internal parts of the body and died during treatment at Govt. Primary Health Centre, Palari. 3. The parents and brothers of deceased Maheshwar Satnami preferred a claim application before the Tribunal registered as MACC No.112/2017, in which the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.11,72,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants, against which MAC No.361/2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement. 4. The legal representatives of deceased Johan Yadav preferred a claim application registered as MACC No.H-118/2017, in which the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,45,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants and also held the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation. Hence, MAC No.1165/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company for exoneration from the liability. MAC No.361 of 2016 5. In Claim Case No.112/2017, the Tribunal has calculated the compensation as under: Heads Amount Monthly income 6,000 Annual income 6,000 x 12 = 72,000 Personal expenses (1/4th of the income) 18,000 5 Annual dependency 54,000 Total loss of dependency (applying multiplier of 18) 9,72,000 Funeral Expenses 25,000 Love & affection 1,75,000 Total Rs.11,72,000 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000 per month is much less than the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that point of time and therefore, it should be enhanced suitably. He next submits that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more if he had not met with the accident. He further submits that the amount given under other heads also needs to be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant/claimants and submits that the deceased was unmarried, therefore, deduction should be 1/2 of the income in stead of 1/4th and the compensation should be modified accordingly. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 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. 10. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the 6 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Though it was claimed that at the time of accident deceased Maheshwar Satnami was earning Rs.12,000 per month from painting work, no documentary evidence in this regard has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 25.06.2017 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that time was Rs.7930. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.7930 per month as minimum wages instead of Rs.6000 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.95160. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the age of the deceased to be 21 years, the future prospects would be 40% of the income. After adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.38064, the amount comes to Rs.133224/-. 12. At the time of accident, the deceased was an unmarried young man. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses would be half of the income instead of 1/4th as wrongly held by the Tribunal. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is being recomputed as below:- Sl. Particulars Calculation 7 No. 1. Monthly income of the deceased 7930 2. Yearly income 95160 3. Future prospects(40% of the income) 38064 4. Total 133224 5. Personal expenses (1/2 of the income) 66612 6. Annual loss of dependency 66612 7. Total loss of dependency (applying multiplier of 18) 66612 x 18 =1199016 8. Funeral Expenses 15000 9. Loss of estate 15000 10. Parental consortium and love & affection (Rs.40,000 to each claimant) 40000 x 5 = 200000 Total compensation Rs.14,29,016 13. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.14,29,016/- from which after deduction of Rs.11,72,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,57,016/-. 14. Accordingly, the claimants in MAC No.361/2019 are entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.2,57,016/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall 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. 15. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal 8 workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. MAC No.1165 of 2019 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that as per insurance policy Ex.D-1, no additional premium was collected in respect of any person other than the driver or cleaner. Deceased Johan Yadav was travelling sitting in the Tractor-Trolley whereas the seating capacity of a tractor-trolley is only for the driver. He submits that since there was no coverage under the policy in respect of any passenger other than the driver; by virtue of which, no liability could have been fixed upon the Appellant/insurer. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 - claimants opposes the submission made by the counsel for the Insurance Company and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal regarding liability is just and proper and does not require any interference. 18. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 19. There is no dispute as to the nature and type of vehicle involved, which is “Tractor-Trolley”. Admittedly, there is only 'one seat' in the Tractor, which is exclusively for the driver. Nobody else is intended to be carried in the Tractor or Trolley, but for carrying the goods. The owner of the offending Tractor-Trolley Ganpat Yadav himself has stated that at the time of accident, apart from the driver, deceased 9 Johan Yadav was travelling in the said Tractor-Trolley along with 2-3 persons. The insurance policy in respect of the Tractor in question has been brought on record and marked as Ex.D-1. Perusal of Ex.D-1 would reflect that no premium was paid to cover the risk of any person other than the driver or cleaner. As per the owner himself, deceased Johan Yadav was travelling in the offending Tractor-Trolley other than the driver when the accident took place. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability upon the Insurance Company, despite the fact that the policy provided no coverage to a passenger in a Tractor- Trolley. 20. In view of the turn of events and the declaration that there is no coverage under the policy to satisfy the risk by the Appellant, the Insurance Company stands exonerated. The amount deposited by the Appellant, if still available at the hands of the Tribunal, shall be caused to be returned to the Appellant. If for any reason, the amount has already been released to the claimants, we make it clear that the Appellant would be at liberty to have it recovered from the the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further made clear that the balance amount payable under the award can be recovered by the claimants (Respondents No.1 and 3) from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 21. Accordingly, MAC No.1165/2019 preferred by the Insurance Company stands allowed to the said extent and MA(C) No. 361 of 2019 preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. 10 22. Record of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai