-1- 2025:CGHC:33157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 801 of 2019 1 - Vittal Amritkar S/o Late Keshav Rao Amritkar, Aged About 67 Years 2 - Smt. Usha Amritkar W/o Vittal Amritkar Aged About 48 Years 3 - Sandeep Amritkar S/o Vittal Amritkar Aged About 25 Years Al R/o Village Narayanpur, Nehru Nagar, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Lukash Kumar Kujur S/o Josheph Kujur Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Karamtoli, Post- Harihand, Thana- Kunkuri, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh....... (Driver of the offending Vehicle City Bus No. C.G.04/e/2729 ) 2 - Commissioner Sir Municipal Corporation, Municipal Office Raipur, ( Chhattisgarh)...... ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle City Bus No. C.G.04/e/2729 ) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Address- Madina Belding Jail Raod, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...... (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle City Bus No. C.G.04/e/2729) --- Respondent(s) _______________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal Advocate with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.29 10:41:42 +0530 -2- MAC No. 573 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Address - Madina Building, Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle City Bus No. Cg04/e/2729) ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Vittal Amritkar S/o Late Keshav Rao Amritkar, Aged About 67 Years 2 - Smt. Usha Amritkar W/o Vittal Amritkar Aged About 48 Years 3 - Sandeep Amritkar S/o Vittal Amritkar Aged About 25 Years All R/o Village Narayanpur, Nehru Nagar, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Lukas Kumar Kujur S/o Josef Kujur, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Karamtoli, Post Harihand, Thana Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Driver , (Driver Of Vehicle City Bus No. C G 04/e/2729) 5 - Shriman Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Owner ( Owner Of Vehicle City Bus No. C G 04/e/2729) --- Respondent(s) _______________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal Advocate with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 15/07/2025 1. MAC No.801 of 2019 is filed by appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and MAC No.573 of 2019 is filed by appellant-Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. As both the appeals arise out of same award dated 12th October 2018 passed by learned Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, -3- Raipur in Claim Case No.808 of 2017 both the appeals are heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that claimants Vitthal Amritkar and two others (appellants in MAC No. 801 of 2019) filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 15.11.2017, Sunil Kumar Amritkar was driving his motorcycle number CG-06/9527 slowly and carefully on his left side from Mahila Thana towards Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur. When he reached near Gurukul Complex at about 01:00 p.m., non-applicant-1/driver of city bus number CG-04/E/2729, came from behind, driving his vehicle speedily and negligently and dashed the motorcycle number CG-06/9527 with great force. As a result, motorcycle driver Sunil Kumar Amritkar sustained serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was admitted to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for treatment, where he died on the same day. Deceased Sunil Amritkar was 31-year-old healthy unmarried man at the time of accident. He was employed as Territory Business Manager in Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Limited, was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and there was a possibility of increase in his income in future. The applicants have suffered a severe mental shock due to the untimely death of the deceased in the accident. Applicants have claimed for total compensation of Rs. 72,50,000/- (Rupees seventy two lakh fifty thousand) along with interest as compensation from the non-applicants under all heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1 by filing his written statement denied the facts pleaded in the claim application and further pleaded that assessment of compensation has been made by the applicants in a highly exaggerated -4- manner. The motorcycle of the deceased after dashing with other motor vehicle fell down in between bus and the divider due to which he got injured. Non-applicant No. 1/driver of bus no. CG-04/10/2729 was driving the said bus carefully at a slow speed, and the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3, as such, responsibility of paying compensation lies with non-applicant no. 3/insurance company. 4. Non-applicant No.2 in his written statement denying the pleading made in the claim application pleaded that assessment of compensation has been done by the applicants on false and fabricated ground due to which the applicants are not entitled to receive compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement pleaded that on the date and time of accident, driver of the motorcycle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, he was driving the motorcycle in an uncontrolled, negligent manner and at a high speed. The owner of the said city bus number CG-04/10/2729 has violated the legal provisions by plying it on the public road without its driver having a valid and effective driving license and without having a permit and fitness certificate. The offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Sunil Amritkar suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of -5- the appellant/claimant as Rs.3,49,851/- per annum, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.37,86,496/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant -insurance company in MAC No.573 of 2019 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,49,851/- per annum without there being any cogent and admissible evidence brought on record by the claimants. He submits that the documents Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11, placed on record to prove the appointment and earning of deceased is not the documents brought from office of the Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. nor witness AW2 who is examined and proved document Ex.P-8 to P-11 had not appeared before the Claims Tribunal on summons issued by Claims Tribunal or there is any authorization letter issued in his favour by Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. In absence of any authorization to enter into witness box, evidence of witness AW2 is not admissible. He further referring to deposition of AW2 would submit that witness has admitted in his evidence about non-receipt of summons from Claims Tribunal and non-authorization from company to appear as witness before the Claims Tribunal. He also submits that as the author of these documents has not been examined, non-applicant 3 /insurance company has been deprived of its opportunity to cross-examine the employer on contents mentioned in these documents. Lastly, he contended that learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded default interest of 9% in place of 7.5 % of regular interest, which is erroneous. 8. Learned counsel for respondent/ claimants and appellant in MAC 801 2019 would submit that claimants are poor parents of deceased who lost -6- their major working son aged about 32 years. He contended that deceased was an educated person, has also done his master degree in Biotechnology and company in which deceased was employed is the healthcare company. From the appointment letter issued in favour of deceased, it is appearing that he was appointed on the post of Territory Business Manager. Claimants to prove nature of employment and income of deceased has examined AW2 who in his evidence has proved appointment of deceased Late Sunil Amritkar as Territory Business Manager and have also produced relevant pay-slips of deceased in which breakup of amount is also mentioned. He was appointed in the year 2014. Initially, he was getting little less pay and thereafter it has been increased from time to time and lastly he was receiving pay of Rs.39,177/- and after deduction, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed annual salary as Rs.3,49,851/- which comes to around Rs. 29,154/- per month. He submits that earring of Rs.29,154/- per month is the wages/salary as reflecting from document Ex.P-11 is of the revised pay w.e.f. 2016. He contended that claimants have also filed separate appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ to all the claimants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Claimants in support of their plea made in the claim application with respect to nature of occupation and income of deceased have placed on record Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11. Ex.P-8 is the offer-cum-appointment letter issued -7- in the name of deceased -Sunil Amritkar appointing him on the post of Territory Business Manager on probation for a period of six months. It also mentions his commencing basic salary and allowance. Ex.P-9 is the letter of confirmation on the post of Territory Business Manager and his salary has been revised. Thereafter, from time to time his salary has been revised and increased which is reflecting from Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11. True it is that that mere exhibiting of documents cannot take the place of proof of documents. But, when the document is exhibited in evidence by the witness who somehow relates with that institution from where it is said to be issued, its proof and reliability would depend on the kind of objection taken and the stage at which it is taken. Here are the documents Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11, in respect of which the objection is not that basically it is inadmissible in evidence, but is about its mode of proof. It is nobody's case that these documents do not bear signature of the authorized representative of the employer or that it is not issued by the institution and is issued by some person other than an authorized representative of the employer. The objection is that the signatory to the document was not examined. Such an objection is about irregular mode of tendering proof of the document. The witness AW2 also submitted original mark-sheets of deceased of Class 10th Class-12 and Graduation and Post Graduation stating that it was submitted in the company at the time of appointment. In claim proceedings for admitting the evidence of the person, test is whether the evidence is probable. In case at hand, the deceased was Post Graduate in Microbiology, and hence, in the opinion fo this Court, claimants have proved the fact of employment by oral and documentary evidence. -8- 11. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that annual income assessed by the Claims Tribunal as Rs.3,49,851/- is on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record which does not call for any interference and is accordingly affirmed. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No.573 of 2019 with respect to not awarding of appropriate compensation under head of other conventional heads to claimants is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified other conventional heads i.e. 'loss of estate', 'funeral expense' and 'loss of consortium' and also quantified amount as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130., Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained types of consortium and held that parents will be entitled for loss of filial consortium. 13. In the case at hand, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate have been awarded by learned Claims which do not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each to claimant No. 1 & 2 under the head loss of consortium. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Claimants No. 1 & 2 being parents of decease are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- -9- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income (A) Income- 3,49,851/- per annum (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (3,49,851 x 40% =139940) 3,49,851 + 139940 = 4,89,791 (C) Deduction of income tax 1. Rs.4,89,791 -2,50,000 = 2,39,791 2. Rs.2,39,791 – 10%= 2,15,812 3. Rs.2,15,812+2,50,000= 4,65,812 Total Income = 4,65,812 (D). Deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses (4,65,812 x 50% =2,32,906) 4,65,812 – 2,32,906 = 2,32,906 (D) Multiplier of 16 2,32,906 x 16 = 37,26,496 : Rs. 37,26,496 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3 Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1 & 2 (parents of deceased) : (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation : Rs. 38,36,496 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.38,36,496/- instead of Rs.37,86,496/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now -10- been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 17. In the result, MAC No.573 of 2019 filed by appellant- Insurance Company is dismissed and MAC No.801 of 2019 filed by appellant- claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent and in the manner indicated a above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen