1 CGHC010195092021 2026:CGHC:41814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date which the case is reserved for order The date when Judgment is pronounced The date when the Judgment is uploaded 15-09-2026 25-9-2026 26-9-2026 MAC No. 521 of 2021 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Complany Limited Through Branch Manager, Magma House 24 Park Street Kolkata 700016, Local Nearest Branch Office, Branch Office Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Limited 3, New Ground Floor N.H. Road, Rajkumar Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Govind Sai S/o Gosai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bahora, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Budhiyaro W/o Govind Sai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bahora, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nasir Sonwani S/o Ahib Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pandarapath, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...............Driver 4 - Virendra Kujur S/o Benjamin Kujur R/o Village Mishanpara, Bahora, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ............Owner ... Respondents For appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Adv. For respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Adv. 2 (HON’BLE MR. SANTOSH SHARMA, J.) CAV JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/Insurance Company has preferred this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 9-2-2021 passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 73/2017. 2. Against the claim for compensation of Rs.42,95,000/- made by the claimants, who are the unfortunate parents of deceased Karam Sai, by filing an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) on account of his death in the motor accident that occurred on 23-4-2017, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,83,400/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act, stating therein that on 23-4-2017 at about 7:00 a.m., deceased Karam Sai was travelling in the tractor bearing registration No. CG 15 CZ 7969 (henceforth, ‘offending vehicle’) to undertake labour work. Construction work was going on on the main road in front of Shankar’s house near village Nanhesar, where gravel, stones and sand had been collected and kept on the road. Due to the said material, the offending vehicle was unable to proceed further. Therefore, deceased Karam Sai got down from the tractor and started removing the gravel and stones 3 collected on the road. The driver of the tractor suddenly drove the vehicle forward at a high speed and in a negligent manner. The deceased could not escape, and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over him, causing injuries and bleeding. He was being taken to Sanna Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The claimants, being the father and mother of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation on account of the death of their son stating that, at the time of death, deceased Karam Sai was aged about 18 years, and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by working as labour and agriculture and claimed Rs. 42,90,000/- as compensation. 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4/driver and owner filed their reply stating that the tractor was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation was upon the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that the incident had not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the claimants had sought exaggerated compensation. Hence, it was prayed that the driver and owner be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its reply denying the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. It also denied that, on the date of the incident, the deceased was travelling in the offending tractor. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident and that the driver and owner had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the 4 deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the tractor. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No. CG 15 CZ 7969 by its driver, i.e., respondent No. 1, Naseer Sonwani; that Karam Sai died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,83,400/-. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have deducted only one-third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and that 50% ought to have been deducted, as the deceased was a bachelor. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- by ignoring the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and filial consortium is on the higher side. It is further contended that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the tractor, which had seating capacity only for the driver. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from liability. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned award, submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. Hence, 5 it is prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal. 10. First and foremost question in this case is that, whether the deceased died in the accident due to negligent driving of the driver of the tractor ? 11. In the FIR (Ex. A-2), it has been stated that, along with driver, two other persons were sitting in the Engine of the tractor, out of whom one person fell down and wheel of the trolly ran over him. But Satyadev Gupta (A.W. 2), who is said to be eye-witness to the incident, has stated in his statement before the Court in instant claim case that, 6 – 7 meter away from his house, work of road construction was carried on, some gravel and stones were lying on road. Karam sai was clearing the stones of the road. The driver could not see Karam Sai and wheel of the tractor ran over him. In cross- examination also, he has stated that before the incident, deceased was sitting over the part of engine of tractor. He has specifically denied that Karam Sai fell down from there due to shock. Thus, there are two different versions regarding the incident in the FIR and in the court statement of A.W. 2. 12. It is well settled that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the manner in which the accident occurred. The author of the FIR has not been examined to prove its content and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Satyadev Gupta (A.W. 2), who is eye-witness. In a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the issue is required to be determined on the basis of the evidence available on record and on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In Anita Sharma and Others v. New 6 India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that strict principles of evidence and the standard of proof applicable to a criminal trial are not applicable to proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and that the evidence has to be appreciated on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further emphasized that a credible eyewitness account cannot be discarded on hyper-technical considerations. 13. In the matter of Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and ors [(2009) 13 SCC 530], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary 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 claimants. The claimants 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." 14. On an overall appreciation of the evidence and in the light of aforecited case laws, considering the standard of proof applicable to motor accident claim proceedings, this Court is satisfied that the claimants have established, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased sustained fatal injuries when he was run over by the tractor in question and died. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal on the manner of accident and the liability of the insurer does not warrant interference. There is nothing on record to show that offending tractor 7 was being run violating the conditions of the insurance policy. 15. In the application for PM report, age of deceased has been assessed as 20 years. Therefore, his age is taken to be 20 years at the time of incident. No documentary evidence has been produced regarding income of the deceased. The claimants have claimed his income to be 4000/- per months. The incident is of the year 2017, therefore, income of the deceased is taken to be 4,000/- per month i.e. 48,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], adding 40% towards future prospects, the income comes to Rs. 67,200/-. 16. So far personal and living expenses of the deceased are concerned, there is nothing on record to show that, the deceased was bachelor at the time of incident. In the cross-examination of the father of the deceased (A.W.1) Govind Sai by the respondents also, there is nothing to indicate that deceased was bachelor at the time of incident. In absence of any credible evidence to the effect that the deceased was bachelor at the time of incident, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the finding of learned Tribunal. As per Smt. Sarla Verma and other Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors. (AIR 2009 SC 3104), since there are 2 dependents of the deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 of 67,200/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, thus, loss of income comes to Rs. 44,800/-. 17. Taking the age of deceased as 20 years and applying multiplier of 18, as per the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 8,06,400/-. 8 18. In addition thereto, the claimants are entitled to 16,500/- towards loss ₹ of estate, 16,500/- towards funeral expenses and 44,000/- towards ₹ ₹ loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:- Sl. No. Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/-. 2. Future prospect 40% Rs. 67,200/- Rs. 67,200/- 3. Annual income – personal expenses (1/3) 44,800/- 44,800/- 4. Loss of dependency using multiplier of 18 8,06,400/- 8,06,400/- 5. Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Total compensation Rs. 8,83,400/- Rs. 8,83,400/- 19. In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award and has rightly awarded compensation in all the heads. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) Judge 9 Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.09.26 12:25:37 +0530