1 2026:CGHC:5069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1414 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Madina Building, Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of The Vehicle Tata 207 Bearing No. Cg-04 Jd 0725), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pramila Pandey W/o Late Shrinivash Pandey Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post- Paliya Golpur, Tehsil And Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur ( U P ), District : Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Rohit Pandey S/o Late Shrinivash Pandey Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Pramila Pandey, R/o Village And Post- Paliya Golpur, Tehsil And Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur ( U P ), District : Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 3 - Suchit Pandey S/o Late Shrinivash Pandey Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Pramila Pandey, R/o Village And Post- Paliya Golpur, Tehsil And Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur ( U P ), District : Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Shri Mulshankar Pandey S/o Late Harabilash Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post- Paliya Golpur, Tehsil And Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur ( U P ), District : Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 5 - Smt. Ramrati Devi W/o Shri Mulshankar Pandey , Aged About 60 Years R/o Village And Post- Paliya Golpur, Tehsil And Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur ( U P ) (Claimants ), District : Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 6 - Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Bhulan Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kirvai, Police Station Gariyabandh, Rajim District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tata 207 Bearing No. Cg-04 Jd 0725) ( Driver ), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Baliram Sonkar S/o Punaram Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Amapara Ashram, Police Station Gariyaband Rajim District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Feeding Of Vehicle Tata 207 Bearing No. Cg-04 Jd 0725) (Owner), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Shaleni Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 27.3.2018 passed by the Court of 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Petition No. 361/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,82,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 06.03.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., the deceased Shriniwas Pandey was walking on the road when the offending goods vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.04JD/0725, driven by respondent No. 6, Suresh Kumar, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, resulting in his death on the spot. In relation to the said accident, an FIR was lodged on the next day, i.e., 07.03.2016, without disclosing the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver of the said vehicle remained present throughout the proceedings till the final disposal of the claim case; however, no documentary proof of the deceased’s income was produced, yet the Tribunal wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Further, respondent No. 7, the owner Baliram, never disclosed the name of the driver at the time of the accident, which amounts to a breach of statutory duty under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the appellant insurance 4 company is not liable to pay compensation. Moreover, on the basis of the LMV licence (Exhibit D-1), Respondent No. 6 drove the offending goods vehicle without proper endorsement, making the insurer not liable. The Tribunal has also wrongly granted future prospects in paragraph 30 of the award and wrongly awarded penal interest in paragraph 34(2) by directing that in case of non- payment within 60 days, interest shall be enhanced from 7.5% to 9% per annum. Lastly, neither the owner nor the driver examined any witness before the Tribunal in the said claim case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that, firstly, to establish the negligence of the insured vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04/JD/0725 (TATA DI 207), it was mandatory to prove the accident through an eyewitness in the present claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; although Issue No. 1 was framed by the Tribunal in this regard, it was wrongly decided, and as evident from Paragraph 5 of the award and the pleadings of the insurance company, no eyewitness was examined by the claimant, which was essential, and even AW-1 Smt. Pramila admittedly stated in Paragraph 7 of her deposition that she was not an eyewitness. Secondly, it is submitted that as per Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner failed to furnish the name of the driver to the appellant insurance company, as reflected in Paragraph 15 of the written statement, thereby absolving the insurer from liability. Thirdly, it is 5 contended that the penal interest awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous, as per Paragraph 34(1) and (2) of the impugned award, whereby interest was enhanced from 7.5% to 9% per annum in case of default after 60 days, which is contrary to settled principles and the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Lastly, it is submitted that, in view of the statement of the RTO witness, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and therefore, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lachoo Ram and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2014 (1) T.A.C. 724 (S.C.). 4. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,82,500/- 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. Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 submits that the offending vehicle was validly insured on the date of accident, and therefore, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire award. Any alleged lapse under Section 134 does not absolve the insurer from statutory liability. The driver possessed a valid driving 6 licence, and no fundamental breach of policy has been proved. Hence, the driver and owner are not liable and deserve to be exonerated. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bimla Devi & others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, (2009) 13 SC 530, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “8..... In a petition under Section 166 of the Act. the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder :- "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 7 8. The High Court in the matter of Harjit Singh and another vs. Suresh Kumar and others decided on 18.12.2008, the High Court has observed as under:- “Initially the appellants had denied the factum of accident but this is relied by the fact that appellant was challaned by the police and report under Section 173 ofCr.P.C. was submitted against him implying thereby that the police on the basis of independent investigation has concluded the complicity of the driver-appellant No.1 and involvement of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The proceedings before the Tribunal being in the shape of an inquiry do not warrant any strict evidence if otherwise the person has been challaned it is sufficient indicator of the involvement of the vehicle in question.” 9. The High Court of Gawhati in the matter of Ranu Bala Paul & others vs. Bani Chakraborty & others, 1999 ACJ 634, the High Court has observed as under:- “In deciding a matter tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim 8 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.” 10. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pushpa Rana & others, 2009 ACJ 287, the High Court has observed as under:- “..... On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge-sheet under Sections 279/304A. Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient 9 proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not requires to be followed in this regard.” 11. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, the High Court has observed as under:- “Where adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the accident occurred on 06.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending goods vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.04JD/0725 by respondent No. 6, resulting in the death of Shriniwas Pandey. Although the appellant insurance company contended that negligence was not proved due to the absence of an eyewitness, that the owner failed to disclose the name of the driver under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the driver lacked proper licence endorsement, and that penal 10 interest was wrongly awarded, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the available evidence, rightly held the driver responsible and fastened liability upon the insurer. The submissions regarding breach of statutory duty and invalid driving licence were not found sufficient to absolve the insurance company from its statutory obligation to satisfy the award. 13. Consequently, no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity was found in the impugned award, and therefore, the appeal stands dismissed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 14. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 11 15. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. In light of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court of the opinion that in order to do complete justice the awarded amount in each of the claim case is required to be enhanced. 17. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum. After adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 90,000/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 22,500/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 67,500/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 40 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are wife, children and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 10,12,500/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,82,000/- in favour of the wife, children and parents of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 12 18. The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 90,000/-. 19. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 40 years and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 are the wife, children and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 22,500/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 67,500/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 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 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,12,500/-. 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 13 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 claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,88,500/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 10,12,500/- 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. 12,88,500/- 20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,88,500/-. After deducting Rs. 10,82,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,06,000/-. 21. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount of compensation including enhanced compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14 22. It is also directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat