1 2026:CGHC:5074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1629 of 2018 Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Ms Insurance Company Ltd. Dare House 2nd Floor Through Branch Manager Registered Head Office Darre House-2, 2nd Floor NSC Bose Road Chennal 600001, Through Local Branch Office Its Deputy Manager (Legal), Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor Simran Tower Opposite Of LIC (Wrongly Mentioned As MIC) Building Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Amit Kunwar W/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 35 Years 2 - Ayush Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 16 Years 3 - Piyush Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 14 Years Respondents No. 2 and 3 are minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Amit Kunwar, 4 - Lalaram Dewangan S/o Ghoduram Dewangan Aged About 68 Years Smt. Kamla Bai wife of Lalaram Dewangan, aged about 65 years Respondents No. 1 to 4 are R/o Village- Makkatola, P.S.- Chichola, Tehsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Amerulhaq @ Sonu Khan S/o Jameel Khan Aged About 28 Years 6.-Smt. Sayra Begam W/o Jameel Khan Caste Muslman aged about 50 years, Respondents No. 5 and 6 are R/o Village- Churiya House No. 217/b World No. 01 Churiya Kala, Tehsil And P.S. Churiya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 926 of 2018 1 - Smt Amit Kuwar W/o Late Shiv Kumar, Aged About 35 Years 2 - Ayush Kumar, son of Late Shiv Kumar, Aged About 16 Years 3 - Piyus Kumar, son of Late Shiv Kumar, Aged About 14 Years YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.04 18:38:19 +0530 2 Appellants No. 2 and 3 being Minor Through Mother Smt. Amit Kuwar, W/o Late Shiv Kumar, 4 - Lalaram Dewangan, son of Late Ghoduram Dewangan, Aged About 68 Years 5 - Smt. Kamla Bai, W/o Lalaram Dewangan, Aged About 65 Years All R/o Village Makkatola, Thana Chichola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants Versus 1 - Amreluhak @ Sonu Khan Jamil Khan Aged About 28 Years 2 - Smt. Sayra Begam, W/o Jamil Khan, Aged About 50 Years Both R/o Village Churiya House No. 217/B, Ward No. 01, Churiyakala, Tahsil And Thana Churiya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Deyar House No. 2, Floor No. 2, N. S. C. Bose Road, Chinnai, 600001 India Through Local Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Simran Towar Opposite Of M. I. C. Building Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Insurance Company : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocates For Claimants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 29.01.2026 1 Since both the appeals arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2 Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 24.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Dongargarh to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims 3 Tribunal') in Claim Case No.04/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,15,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein. 3 MAC No.1629/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation as also breach of policy conditions, whereas MAC No.926/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4 As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 13.09.2016 at about 11:00 a.m., the deceased Shivkumar Dewangan was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-Q- 3439 (Honda) from Dongargarh towards his native village Makkatola, where he was running a poultry farm. When the deceased reached Madiyan–Jhinjhari Road near the bridge, a white coloured Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 08-Y-2806 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-applicant No.1, came from the opposite direction and, due to rash and negligent driving, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the said impact, the deceased along with his motorcycle fell into the canal drain and sustained serious injuries on his head, hands and legs. He was immediately taken towards 4 Dongargarh for medical treatment; however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. 5 At the time of the accident, the deceased Shivkumar Dewangan was about 38 years of age and was running a large-scale poultry farm at his native village Makkatola, earning approximately Rs.48,000/- per month, which was the sole source of livelihood for the claimants. The deceased was a regular income-tax assessee and was paying income tax to the Government of India. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered irreparable loss, being deprived of the love, care and companionship of the deceased. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.93,00,000/- under various permissible heads. 6 On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave illegality and patent error of law in ignoring the most material and reliable documents, namely the Dehati Nalishi, FIR and other contemporaneous records, which were recorded immediately after the accident and 5 were duly filed and exhibited by the claimants themselves. These documents clearly disclose that the cause of the accident was the negligence of the deceased himself falling from his motorcycle, without involvement of any other vehicle. It is submitted that such documents, being the first version of the incident, have great evidentiary value and are binding in nature, yet the Tribunal failed to appreciate them in their true and proper perspective. Instead, the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the Final Report and seizure memo, which were prepared after an unexplained delay of nearly three months, and mechanically held that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident, without any independent corroboration. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the belated implication of the insured vehicle is clearly an afterthought, actuated in collusion with the owner of the vehicle only with a view to wrongfully extract compensation from the appellant Insurance Company, especially when the initial version given before the hospital authorities and the police stood in stark contradiction to the subsequent statements. 8 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding non-applicant No.1 negligent without examining even a single eyewitness to the alleged accident. It is trite law that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden squarely lies upon the claimants to establish rashness and negligence by producing cogent, reliable and convincing evidence, which burden 6 has miserably failed to be discharged in the present case. The Tribunal overlooked the settled principle that proof of negligence is sine qua non for maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Act, and compensation cannot be granted on mere assumptions or presumptions. It is further submitted that no person can be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, and consequently, the heirs of a tortfeasor are also not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, the impugned findings on involvement of the insured vehicle and negligence are perverse, contrary to the record, and liable to be set aside. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after due appreciation of the entire material available on record, has rightly held that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident and that there was no violation of the insurance policy conditions. However, it is submitted that despite recording such findings, the learned Tribunal committed serious errors while assessing compensation on lower side. The learned Tribunal grossly erred in ignoring the Income Tax Returns (Exs. P/9 to P/14) filed on record and instead, on mere assumption and presumption, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which finding is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to evidence. It is submitted that Income Tax Returns are issued by a statutory authority and merely because the returns were computer-generated or unsigned, their evidentiary value could not have been discarded, particularly 7 when the same were not disputed by the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that the deceased was an income tax assessee and his income ought to have been assessed on the basis of documentary evidence rather than conjectures. 10 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not properly determining the age of the deceased. Instead of relying upon reliable documentary evidence such as the mark- sheet and date of birth, the learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon oral evidence, ignoring that the deceased’s actual date of birth was 28.07.1977, and the incorrect age of 48 years mentioned in oral testimony was only a typographical mistake. As the deceased was below 40 years of age on the date of accident, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the correct multiplier and granted future prospects, particularly keeping in view that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation and its provisions are required to be interpreted in favour of victims of accidents. The learned Tribunal further committed grave illegality in assessing the annual income at Rs.54,000/-, applying a lower multiplier, and not awarding any amount towards future prospects, resulting in a wholly inadequate and unjust compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal also erred in not granting compensation towards medical expenses, ignoring the settled position of law that it is a normal human tendency not to preserve every medical bill in circumstances arising out of sudden accidents. The 8 compensation awarded under conventional heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, is also on the lower side and liable to be suitably enhanced. The learned Tribunal further failed to grant compensation under the heads of mental agony, harassment and escort charges, which the claimants were clearly entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Tribunal also illegally disbelieved the evidence of the claimants and their witnesses without assigning cogent reasons, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 11 Learned counsel lastly submits that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, considering the prolonged litigation and financial hardship suffered by the claimants due to the untimely death of the deceased. The overall compensation awarded is meagre, unjust and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be modified, and the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced suitably. 12 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 13 First, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.1629/2018. 14 A close examination of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned award reveals that the learned Claims Tribunal has elaborately and correctly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence 9 while deciding the issue of alleged violation of insurance policy. The Tribunal has rightly held that the burden to prove breach of policy conditions squarely lay upon non-applicant No.3 – the Insurance Company, which it failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence. 15 On the contrary, the material placed on record by the claimants, including the First Information Report (FIR), Dehati Nalishi and the Property Seizure Sheet (Exhibit P/6), clearly establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The FIR, being a contemporaneous public document, corroborates the factum of the accident, the manner of occurrence and the involvement of the said vehicle, and no material contradiction has been brought on record by the non-applicant Insurance Company to discredit the same. 16 The learned Tribunal has further relied upon the Property Seizure Report (Exhibit P/6), which unequivocally shows that the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving licence No. CG-08-BLE-0000973/2011, valid up to 21.09.2031. The document also reflects that the offending vehicle had valid fitness from 18.09.2015 to 17.09.2017 and a valid permit for the relevant period. 17 Despite specifically raising a plea of breach of policy, the non- applicant Insurance Company neither produced the vehicle nor adduced any documentary or oral evidence to substantiate its 10 allegation. In the absence of any proof of violation, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that no condition of the insurance policy was breached and answered Issue No.4 in the negative against non-applicant No.3. The findings recorded are well- reasoned, based on proper appreciation of FIR and seizure documents, and call for no interference by this Court. 18 Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.1629/2018 is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19 Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.926/2018. 20 Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.48,000/- per month by running a Poultry Farm , but has not produced any evidence with respect to place of work of deceased or any documentary evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 13.09.2016, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in labour work and his income to be assessed to Rs.6,107/- per month. 21 The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation 11 Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased aged between 40-45 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. 22 In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2016, as such, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.6,107/- per month, i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, 25% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.91,605/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.68,704/-. After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.10,30,560/-. 23 The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. 12 Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in view of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 24 On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 25% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 18,321 = Rs.91,605/- 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 91,605 / 4 = Rs.22,901/- = Rs.68,704/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 applied 68,704 x 15 Rs.10,30,560/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 13 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the five claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.2,40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Rs.13,06,560/- 25 In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.13,06,560/-. After deducting Rs.6,15,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.6,91,560/-. 26 In the result :- (i) The appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.926/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,91,560/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. (ii) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.1629/2018 is dismissed being devoid of merit. 14 27 Since, it is an admitted fact that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and there was no breach of policy conditions, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 28 The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh