1 CGHC010096002023 2026:CGHC:38238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 519 of 2023 1 - I C I C I Lombard Gereral Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory, Vijit Narendra Bapat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o - Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Police Station -Devendra Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Khilavan Nishad S/o Herau Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Santoshi Chowk, A.C.C. Jamul, Ward No. 6, Jamul, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 1). 2 - Jam Bai Nishad W/o Khilavan Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o Santoshi Chowk, A.C.C. Jamul, Ward No. 6, Jamul, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 2). 3 - Ku. Dileshwari Nishad D/o Khilavan Nishad Aged About 17 Years R/o Santoshi Chowk, A.C.C. Jamul, Ward No. 6, Jamul, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 3). 4 - Purshottam Yadav S/o Ganpat Ram Yadav Aged About -18 1/2 Years, R/o Near Santoshi Chowk, Jamul, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 1, Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 07/bd/7957). 5 - Rajendra Kumar Deshmukh S/o Bhagwati Prassad Deshmukh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Shivpuri, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 2, Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 07/bd/7957) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No.4 to 5 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.09.01 18:26:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the award dated 14.12.2022 passed by the VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 459/2019, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,58,302/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Khemlal in a motor accident which occurred on 22.06.2018. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal itself, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, has recorded a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.4 without a valid and effective driving licence, which amounted to a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that, having recorded such finding, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured. However, despite the said finding, learned Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant–Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner. According to learned counsel, such a direction is unsustainable in law and the appellant–Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated from its liability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the deceased's income towards personal expenses. It is contended that, since the deceased was a bachelor, 3 it ought to have been one-half of the income. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned award requires modification to that extent. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned award with due care. 6. From perusal of paragraph 23 of the impugned award, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.4) did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. Thus, there was a breach of the condition of the insurance policy relating to the driving of the vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence. At the same time, the Tribunal has found that the vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, while considering a fundamental breach of the insurance policy condition, has held that the insurer, though exonerated from its ultimate liability, is required to first satisfy the award by paying the compensation amount to the claimants and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the amount so paid from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 8. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the direction issued by the learned Tribunal requiring the appellant–Insurance Company to first 4 satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount so paid from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. As regards the deduction towards personal expenses, admittedly, the deceased was an unmarried person aged about 18 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses would be one-half of the income, and not one-third, as applied by the Tribunal. Cross Objection 10 . Cross-objection has also been filed by the claimants/ respondents No. 1 to 3 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas the contention of the Insurance Company is that excessive compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 11. Though the claimants claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs. 9000/- per month by working as a labour, the tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 7000/- per month. The accident occurred on 22.06.2018 and as per the notification by Labour Department, the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was Rs.8100/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8100/-. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.97,200/-. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation is reassessed as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 7000 x 12 = 84,000/- Rs. 8100 x 12 = 97,200/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 33,600) = 1,17,600/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 38,880/-) = 1,36,080 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 39,200) =78,400/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 37,350) = 68,040/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 14,11,200/- (x) 18 = 12,24,720/- 5. Medical Expenses 37,102 37,102 6. Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate 30,000 (15,000x 2) =30,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) Total Rs. 15,58,302/- Rs. 14,11,822/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the respondents No.1 to 3 /claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,11,822/- instead of Rs.15,58,302/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Insurance company stands partly allowed and the cross-objection filed by the claimants stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130