1 2025:CGHC:43336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 293 of 2018 1 - Dhanurjay Patel S/o S/o Shri Shaym Kumar Patel Aged About 39 Years Profession- Driver, R/o Village-Indira Nagar, Basanpali, Tahsil- Tamnar, District- Raigarh, Civil And Revenue, District- Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. ....................(Claimant)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manoj Singh S/o S/o Shri Jaychandra Rajpur Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ......................(Owner Of Vehicle)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Singh @ Vikki S/o S/o Shri Jaychand Singh Profession- Driver, R/o Village- Purani Basti, Ward No. 4, House No. 291, P. S. City Kotwali Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ....................(Driver)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office- Oriental House- A-25/27, Ashaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 11002, Through Branch Manager, Aitwari Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ....................(Insurance Company)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyap Patel, Advocate and Mr. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Wasim Miyan, Advocate for their respective respondents. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No.111 of 2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.7,59,000/- in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that On 18.05.2015, the claimant, while travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 13 UA 0552, was involved in a collision with vehicle no. CG 12 C 3028, as a result of which he sustained injuries and consequently filed a claim application, impleading the owner, driver, and the Insurance Company as parties. The Insurance Company, in its written statement, specifically denied having issued Cover Note No. 387725 purporting to cover the risk of the offending vehicle for the period from 05.04.2015 to 04.04.2016, as stated in paragraphs 6 and 10 of its reply. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle proceeded ex parte and failed to appear before the Tribunal or enter the witness box to prove the existence or validity of any 3 insurance policy or cover note. The claimant examined himself and marked a photocopy of the alleged cover note as Exhibit P-9. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined its Assistant Manager, Dindayal Charvande (NAW-1), who categorically deposed that Cover Note No. 387725, produced by the claimant, had never been issued by the Insurance Company; no Development Officer bearing Code No. 230210 was associated with the Company; and no premium had ever been received against the purported cover note. He further stated that upon verification, the said cover note was found to be forged and fabricated, and once this fact came to light, a public notice was issued and an FIR was lodged. In support of its contention, the Insurance Company exhibited the paper publication as Exhibit D- 1, a copy of the FIR as Exhibit D-2, the register of cover notes issued between 03.04.2015 and 30.04.2015 as Exhibit D-3, and the premium collection register for the period 03.04.2015 to 22.04.2015 as Exhibit D-4, to conclusively establish that Cover Note No. 387725 had not been issued by the Company and no premium had been received in that regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants respectfully submits that the Learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation payable in the present case. It is contended that the income of the deceased has not been correctly computed, and the methodology adopted for assessing the same is neither 4 proper nor in accordance with settled legal principles. In particular, the Tribunal has failed to consider the monthly income of the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that compensation under the conventional heads, including loss of furture income, medical expenses, and loss of income during bed rest, loss of amenities and also the pain and sufferings has not been awarded in accordance with the norms laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The non-consideration or improper quantification under these heads has led to an unjust and inadequate compensation amount. In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal may kindly be modified and the compensation amount be enhanced appropriately, in accordance with law and the binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company may further be directed to pay amount of compensation in the first instance and to pay and recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle for this he places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1412 of 2024. 4. The respondent–Insurance Company respectfully submits that, in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the statutory duty to satisfy an award arises only upon the issuance of a valid certificate of insurance under Section 147(3) of the Act. In the 5 present case, the purported Cover Note No. 387725, produced by the claimant and marked as Exhibit P-9, is neither issued by the Insurance Company nor supported by any underlying policy, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Section 147. The said cover note was seized in a criminal case after 72 days of its alleged issuance on 04.04.2015, well beyond the 60-day validity prescribed under Rule 142 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and no policy was ever issued to the non-applicant no.1 pursuant to it. The Company's witness has categorically deposed that no premium was received against the alleged cover note, and this fact is supported by the premium collection register marked as Exhibit D-4. As per Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, no risk can be assumed without advance premium payment. The Insurance Company has thus discharged its burden of proof, while the owner failed to produce any document to establish premium payment or challenge the Company's evidence. Upon verification of the forged cover note, the Insurance Company promptly published a public notice and lodged an FIR. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a photocopy is inadmissible unless the requirements under the Evidence Act are fulfilled, and in the present case, the sole reliance on an unverified photocopy, whose authenticity is seriously disputed, precludes any liability being fastened upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned herein does not warrant any interference of this Court, therefore, the appeal preferred by the 6 appellants/claimants is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month. As per circular issued by the C.G. Government for skilled labour, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal appears to be unjust and this Court finds it necessary to consider the income of the appellant to Rs.6,229/- per month. 7. However, with regard to the components of income of the deceased, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded under these heads is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view the nature of the occupation, the date of the accident, prevailing wage structure at the relevant time, cost of living, and other relevant economic indicators. 8. The income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.74,748/- annually (Rs.6,229 x 12), out of which a deduction of one-fourth (1/4th), amounting to Rs.18,687/-, was made towards personal expenses, thereby arriving at a total income of Rs.56,061/- for the 7 purpose of computing compensation. Applying a multiplier of 15, the loss of earning capacity was calculated at Rs.8,40,915/-. Considering that the appellant suffered 50% permanent disability, the amount was further reduced by half, resulting in Rs.4,20,458/-. A further deduction of one-fourth (1/4th), amounting to Rs.1,05,115/-, was made on account of contributory negligence, leaving the net loss of earning capacity at Rs.3,15,344/-. In addition, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- for sustaining 50% permanent disability, Rs.1,50,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation, special diet and incidental expenses, and Rs.3,01,000/- towards medical expenses. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.9,66,344/-. This Court is inclined to enhance the amount of compensation under the following heads:- Sn. Heads Calculation 1. Income of the Appellant Rs.74,748/- (Rs.6,229 x 12) 2. Deduction 1/4th Rs.18,687/- 3. Total Income of the Appellant Rs.56,061/- 4. Multiplier of 15 Rs.8,40,915/- 5. After deduction of 1/2nd (Disability was found 50%) Rs.4,20,458/- 6. Deduction for Contributory Negligence 1/4th Rs.1,05,115/- 7. Compensation Rs.3,15,344/- 8. For Sustaining disability of 50% Rs.1,50,000/- 9. Physical and Mental Agony Rs,1,50,000/- 10. Transportation, Special Diet and etc. Rs.50,000/- 8 11. Medical Expenses Rs.3,01,000/- Total amount of compensation : Rs.9,66,344/- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.9,66,344/- from Rs.7,59,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,07,344/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 10. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 29.11.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 11. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle are directed to pay compensation including the enhanced amount of compensation. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena