1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 443 of 2020 1 - Harishankar Painkara S/o Late Suknath Painkara Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhagalpur Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vrindavati S/o Late Suknath Aged About 28 Years Nil 3 - Minor Shivshankar Painkara S/o Late Suknath Painkara Aged About 12 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Ramkumari Painkara, Appellant No. 4. 4 - Smt. Ramkumari Painkara Wd/o Late Suknath Painkara Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Manjhapara, Karwarjor, Tahsil Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 51 Years (Registered Owner Om Bus Number Cg 14 G 1083), R/o Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lalit Yadav S/o Lalsai Yadav Aged About 28 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Karwarjor, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Local Branch Office, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 937 of 2020 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Local Branch Office Raigarh, Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, T.P.Hub, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, L I C Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, (C.G.)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Harishankar Painkara, S/o Late Skukhnath Painkara Aged About 22 Years R/o- Vill.- Manjhapara Karwarjor, Tah.- Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh. (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Vrindavati D/o Late Sukhnath Painkara Aged About 28 Years R/o- Vill.- Manjhapara Karwarjor, Tah.- Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh. (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Shivshankar Painkara S/o Late Sukhnath Painkara Aged About 12 Years Through- Mother-Smt. Rajkumari Painkara, (Respondent No. 4) R/o- Vill.- Manjhapara Karwarjor, Tah.- Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh. (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Ramkumari Painkara Wd/o Late Sukhnath Painkara, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Vill.- Manjhapara Karwarjor, Tah.- Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh. (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Ambikapur Road Pathalgaon, Tah.- Pathalgaon, Distt.- Jashpur, (C.G.).(Registered Owner Of Bus Bearing Registration No. Cg-14g-1083), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Lalit Yadav S/o Lalsai Yadav, Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Vill.- Karwajor, Tah.- Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh, (C.G.), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel for the appellants / MAC No. 443 of 2020 Mr. Vidhi Matlani on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents / MAC No. 937 of 2020. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 26/08/2025 These appeals are arising out of common award, therefore, these are decided and disposed of together by this common order. 2. MAC No. 443 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants and MAC No.937 of 2020 has been filed by the insurance company. Parties are referred to their status as per tribunal. 3. These two appeal are arising out of award dated 20.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 76/2018 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District Jashpur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 36,25,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,50,100/- in favour of the claimants. 3 4. As per pleadings of the claims application filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ MV Act”), the deceased Sukhnath Paikra died in an unfortunate accident that took place on 12.06.2017 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bus registration No. CG 14 G 1083. 5. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 52 years and was working as a mason and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased and therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 6. The driver and owner of the offending vehicles have filed a written statement opposing the claim, contending that the amount of compensation sought by the claimants is highly exaggerated and unjustified. They assert that the deceased was lying on the road in a state of intoxication. Upon noticing this, the driver of the bus sounded the horn, prompting the deceased to get up and move towards the side of the road. However, he suddenly stumbled and moved back onto the roadway before regaining his balance, as a result of which, he came into contact with the side of the vehicle. The accident, therefore, occurred solely due to the deceased’s own negligence. It is further denied that the deceased was working as a mason. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the claim petition filed by the claimants is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The insurance company has filed its written statement opposing the claim, alleging that the claimants have not submitted any documentary evidence regarding the age, income, or occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is highly inflated and that the assessment made by the 4 claimants is baseless, false, misleading, and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is specifically denied that the death of the deceased occurred due to any fault on the part of insurance company. On the contrary, it is asserted that the accident was solely the result of the deceased's own negligence. The claimants have failed to disclose any valid basis or documentary evidence for impleading the insurance company as a party to these proceedings. In the absence of such documents, verification is not possible. There is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance company. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimants is devoid of merit and, in the opinion of the insurance company, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. The learned Tribunal after having framed issues found that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,000/- and found that the insurance company could not prove the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased thus awarded the compensation as stated above. 9. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the claimants supports the award and submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as permit was there of the offending vehicle therefore, the insurance company cannot be 5 held liable to pay the compensation. Apart from this, he submits that the just compensation has been awarded therefore, he prays that the insurance company may be exonerated on payment of compensation. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 12. It leads to the first question whether the just compensation has been awarded. The Tribunal found the monthly salary was Rs. 9000/- which in the opinion of this Court is correct taking into consideration on evidence on record. 13. In view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 9000/- 2. 10% Future prospect 900/- 3. Total Monthly Income (9000+900) 9900/- 4. Total Yearly Income (9900x12) 1,18,800/- 5. 1/4 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased 29,700/- 5. Net income 89,100/- 6. Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency 9,80,100/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 8. Loss of estate 15,000/- 6 9. Spouse consortium 40,000/- 10. Parental consortium (A-2 to A-4) 1,20,000/- (40,000/- each) 11. Total compensation 11,70,100/- 14. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 10,50,100/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,70,100/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,50,100/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 15. Now, the question comes whether the insurance company can be exonerated from payment of compensation. The defence has been taken by the insurance company there is no valid permit of the offending vehicle. The claims Tribunal in paragraph No. 15 has held that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was also holding the valid fitness. It is a settled position of law that the insurance company takes a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which prove the breach leading cogent and prudent evidence. On behalf of Insurance company Mr. Raghunath Sahu (NAW-1) Advocate was examined who has stated that on the perusal of criminal papers in the seizure memo no seizure of RC, fitness and permit of the insurance policy and driving license of driver does not appear to have been seized. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the claim application the registration certificate fitness 7 particular insurance policy and driving license of the driver of the photocopy was filed. Apart from this witness no other witness of the insurance company was examined to prove the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. From the records of the criminal papers it does not appear that any offence against the owner of the vehicle and violation of permit has been registered. The insurance company could have examined their witness and prove the defence taken by him but for the reasons best known to them, they have not examined any witness rather only any examined the investigator. The learned Tribunal in issue No. 1 gave a categorical finding that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, finding with regard to violation is appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, contention of Mr. Gupta is repelled. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. On deposit learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to investment, apportionment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation amongst the claimants i.e. wife, children of the deceased. 17. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants / MAC No. 443 of 2020 is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurance company / MAC No. 937 of 2020 is Dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan