1 2026:CGHC:4542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 703 of 2017 1 - Mohan Marco S/o Kushal Singh Marco, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Barpali, Police Chowki Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Revenue And Civil Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deepak Marco S/o Mohan Marco, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Barpali, Police Chowki Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Revenue And Civil Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus 1 - Mohan Singh Gond @ Golu Gond S/o Hanuman Singh, R/o Villagebari Umraw, Police Station Pendra District Revenue And Civil Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Afjal Khan S/o Jahir Khan, R/o Purani Basand, Pendra, District Revenue And Civil Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office Near Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Revenue And Civil Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 569 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.04 18:38:17 +0530 2 1 - Mohan Marko S/o Kushal Singh Marko, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Barpali, Outpost Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deepak Marko S/o Mohan Marko, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Barpali, Outpost Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohan Singh Gond @ Golu Gond S/o Hanuman Singh, R/o Village Bari Umrao, Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Afzal Khan S/o Jahir Khan, R/o Purani Basti, Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Claimants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 27.01.2026 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 28.01.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.830/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 3. MAC No.703/2017 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas MAC No.569/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company 3 challenging the quantum of compensation as also breach of policy conditions. 4. The facts, in brief, are that on 04.08.2014, the deceased Smt. Ganeshiya Bai, after completing her work as a labourer at village Patgawan near the bypass, was returning to her village in a Tata SC vehicle bearing No. CG-10/C/9027 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-applicant No.1. On reaching village Bhadri, while she was alighting from the vehicle, the driver negligently and carelessly moved the vehicle forward with a sudden jerk, due to which she fell down and sustained serious injuries to her head, face and other parts of the body. She was taken to Government Hospital, Pendra, where she succumbed to her injuries during treatment. A criminal case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver at Police Station Pendra vide Crime No. 165/2014. 5. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning her livelihood as a labourer and was financially supporting the claimants, who have suffered loss of dependency and loss of consortium on account of her untimely death. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- has been claimed from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. The non-applicant No.1 (driver) and non-applicant No.2 (owner) have denied the allegations of negligence, relationship with the deceased and her income, alleging false implication, whereas 4 non-applicant No.3 (insurer) has denied its liability on the ground of violation of policy conditions, including use of a goods vehicle for carrying passengers and absence of a valid driving licence and statutory vehicle documents at the time of accident. 7. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal held that the claimants failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the income of the deceased Ganeshiya Bai and, therefore, on the basis of settled principles, her monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,000/-, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was determined to be 50 years on the basis of the postmortem report. Considering claimant No.1 (husband) as a dependent and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/-, which, by applying a multiplier of 13, resulted in Rs.3,12,000/-. An additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of other conventional heads, making the total compensation Rs.3,32,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of non- applicant No.1, the vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3, and as there was no violation of policy conditions, non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the claimants were held entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- from non-applicant No.3. 5 8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is unjust, improper and inadequate and, therefore, deserves enhancement. It is further submitted that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is extremely low and has been calculated in a miserly manner, whereas the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per day. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under the head of future prospects. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding interest from the date of application, whereas interest ought to have been granted at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the head of consortium is inadequate and that the learned Tribunal failed to grant any compensation under the head of loss of love and affection, which the claimants are legally entitled to. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal committed a gross error in not accepting the fact that at the time of the accident the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, which fact stands prima facie admitted by the 6 claimants and is duly established by the final investigation report, FIR as well as on a bare perusal of the insurance policy. He further submits that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the present appellant, particularly the testimony of witness Sanjeevan Ekka, who specifically deposed on oath regarding breach of the insurance policy conditions. 11. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a gross error of law in not following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to carriage of gratuitous passengers in goods-carrying commercial vehicles. As such, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and the Insurance Company ought to be exonerated from the liability fastened upon it by the learned Claims Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel lastly submits that since the present appeal challenges only the liability aspect, it is not legally mandatory to file a certified copy of the order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and accordingly, an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the said order, supported by an affidavit, has been filed. It is also submitted that the mandatory deposit as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been made. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 7 14. This Court shall first deal with the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.703/2017. 15. The Learned Claims Tribunal has categorically held in paragraphs 17 to 19 that although the claimants pleaded that the deceased Ganeshiya Bai was earning Rs.250/- to Rs.350/- per day as a labourer, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate such income. In the absence of concrete proof, and applying settled judicial principles, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal further held that though the age of the deceased was stated as 45 years in the claim petition, the postmortem report and other documents on record established her age as 50 years. Considering claimant No.2 to be an adult son not fully dependent, and holding claimant No.1 (husband) to be a dependent, the Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal living expenses and assessed the annual loss of dependency at Rs.24,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 13 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.20,000/- towards other conventional heads, thus determining the total compensation at Rs.3,32,000/-. 8 16. Considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence on record and the settled principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation to the claimants. The assessment made by the Tribunal suffers from inadequacy under various heads and does not adequately reflect the loss actually suffered by the claimants. Consequently, the impugned award warrants interference by this Court to the extent of enhancement and correction in order to render substantial justice. 17. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.250/- to Rs.350/- per day as a labourer, but has not produced any 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 accident occurred in the year 2014, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.5,468/- per month. 18. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 9 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 50 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 50 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.5,468/- per month, i.e. Rs.65,616/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of person of 50 years without fixed income, 25% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.16,404/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.54,680/-. After applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.7,10,840/-. 19. 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.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As 10 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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 20. 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.5,468/- per month Rs.65,616/- per annum 2. 25% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 65,616 + 16404 = Rs.82,020/- 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 82,020 / 3 = 27,340/- = Rs.54,680/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 13 applied 54,680 x 13 Rs.7,10,840/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.96,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.8,60,840/- 11 21. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.8,60,840/-. After deducting Rs.3,32,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.5,28,840/-. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.703/2017 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,28,840/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 23. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.569/2017. 24. Learned Claims Tribunal has categorically dealt with the issue regarding breach of policy conditions in paragraphs 13 to 16 and held that although non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle, insured as a goods vehicle, was being used for carrying passengers and that non-applicant No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence and non-applicant No.2 lacked valid vehicle documents, no cogent evidence was brought on record to substantiate such plea. 25. The Tribunal noticed that the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 165/2014 was limited to an offence under Section 304-A IPC and did not allege violation of any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor did it record that the deceased was travelling as a passenger 12 in the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the testimony of the Insurance Company witness Sanjivan Ekka did not inspire confidence, as no documentary proof of licence verification was produced and, as per Ex. D/3, the driving licence was valid and effective on the date of the accident. 26. It was further held that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the deceased was a gratuitous or fare-paying passenger in the goods vehicle, as no independent evidence or document was produced in this regard. Accordingly, the Tribunal answered the issue relating to breach of insurance policy conditions in the negative and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 27. Upon an anxious consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record and the settled position of law governing the field, this Court finds no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has returned well-reasoned findings on all material issues, particularly with regard to the alleged breach of insurance policy conditions. The Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company failed to discharge the burden cast upon it under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act to establish any conscious or fundamental breach of policy conditions. The plea that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle or that the driver was not 13 holding a valid and effective driving licence has not been substantiated by any cogent or reliable evidence. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 28. This Court is also satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and has been determined in consonance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No ground is made out to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it. 29. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. 30. In the result - (i) MAC No. 703/2017, filed by the claimants, is allowed in part; and (ii) MAC No. 569/2017, filed by the Insurance Company, is dismissed. 31. 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