1 2026:CGHC:1310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1569 of 2018 1 - Jugesh S/o Surit Ram Ghasi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sakholi Darripara P.S. Darima Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Manu Vishwakarma S/o Lakhan Ram Aged About 43 Years Caste - Lohar, R/o Village Sakholi, P.S. Darima Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satpal Agrawal S/o Late Sheri Janki Prasad Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Manikprakashpur, P.S. Kotwali, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Branch Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1602 of 2018 1 - Smt. Dilbaabi W/o Late Rajinder Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Housewife, Caste Ghasi, R/o Village Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Renuka D/o Late Rajinder Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 1), Caste Ghasi, R/o Village Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Ragini D/o Late Rajinder Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 1), Caste Ghasi, R/o Village Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajveer S/o Late Rajinder Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 1), Caste Ghasi, R/o Village Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ranveer S/o Late Rajinder Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 1), Caste Ghasi, R/o Village Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Manu Vishwakarma W/o Lakhan Ram, Aged About 43 Years Caste Lohar R/o Village Sakholi, P.S. Darima Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh..........(Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satpal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Janki Prasad Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Manikprakashpur, P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh...........(Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Branch Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh............(Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 7.9.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1569 of 2018 and 1602 of 2018 are claimants’ appeal against the award dated 7.9.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident 4 Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Cases No. 85/2017 & 86/2017 respectively. MAC No. 1569/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 16.01.2017 at about 6:30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG/15/CZ/1030 (Tractor) that respondent No. 2 is the registered owner of the said vehicle and respondent No. 3 is its insurer, the vehicle being duly insured at the time of the accident; that the learned Claims Tribunal, after framing the relevant issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and, on that basis, denied any compensation; and that, being aggrieved by the impugned award which is ex facie bad in law, the appellant has preferred the present challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He 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 4. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 5. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful appreciation of the material available on record, it clearly emerges that there is nothing to substantiate or establish that the injured claimant sustained any injury so as to entitle him to the grant of compensation under the relevant provisions of law. Although it is apparent that the accident did occur on account of the negligence of the offending vehicle bearing Tractor No. C.G.-15-CZ-1030, yet mere proof of negligence, in the absence of 6 cogent evidence regarding the nature, extent, or existence of injuries, cannot form the basis for awarding compensation. It is further significant to note that no medical evidence has been adduced in support of the claim, nor has the doctor been examined to corroborate the alleged injuries. 10. In view of these material deficiencies and the complete absence of proof regarding any compensable injury, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit one for grant of compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appeal (MAC No.1569/2018) filed by the appellant/claimant deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. MAC No. 1602/2018 12. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of the husband and father of the claimants, respectively, who lost his life in a motor accident that occurred on 16.01.2017 at about 6:30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG/15/CZ/1030 (tractor), respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the said offending vehicle, while respondent No.3 is its insurer, the vehicle being duly insured at the time of the accident; however, the learned Claims Tribunal, after framing various issues and recording the evidence led by the parties, held that the claimants failed to prove their case with regard to the occurrence of the accident itself and, on that basis, concluded that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation; aggrieved by 7 the impugned award, which is ex facie illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the same. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in law and on facts in dismissing the claim petition on the misconceived and erroneous ground that the appellants failed to establish the occurrence of the accident merely for want of an eyewitness. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the claim could have been proved on the basis of documentary and circumstantial evidence available on record. The learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken into due consideration the fact that a criminal case arising out of the said accident is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the driver of the offending vehicle, which itself substantiates the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle therein. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and perversity, is unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation in the interest of justice. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in 8 question is based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record which does not call for any interference. 15. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 18. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 19. From a careful perusal of the evidence of the eyewitness, it clearly and unequivocally emerges that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, namely the tractor bearing the concerned registration number. The eyewitness has categorically and convincingly corroborated the manner of the accident and the negligence attributable to the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the learned Trial Court, instead of appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, has dismissed the claim petition merely on the basis of a single stray or stressed sentence, ignoring the 9 overall tenor and substance of the testimony on record. Such an approach is manifestly erroneous, unsustainable in law, and suffers from apparent illegality. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside, and the claim petition stands partly allowed. 20. So far as income of the deceased. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,206/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 74,472/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,789/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,04,261/-. 21. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 32 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 26,065/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 78,196/-. 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. 10 Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 12,51,136/-. 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 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,27,136/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,51,136/- 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. 15,27,136/- 22. Thus, the total compensation is computed as Rs. 15,27,136/-. 11 23. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1602/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled to get a compensation amount of Rs. 15,27,136/- .The compensation amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of the claim petition presented before claims tribunal till its realization. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat