1 2026:CGHC:4544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1151 of 2017 1 - Bhola Shankar Srivas S/o Robind Prasad Srivas, Aged About 47 Years R/o Banak Chowk, Sapna Sadan, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Owner Of The Hydra Crane No. C.G. 12 D A 3811 Non Applicant No. 2, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jagdish Prasad Yadav (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-07-2025. 2.1 - (A) Sandeep Kumar Yadav S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Lig-83, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2.2 - (B) Kuldeep Yadav S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Lig-83, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2.3 - (C) Ajeet Yadav S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Lig-83, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1 - Smt. Vimla Bai W/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rameshwar Sahu S/o Buddhu Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sunita Sahu D/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Buddhu Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Kavita Sahu D/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Buddhu Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ram Sahu S/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Buddhu Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Dipika Sahu, S/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Buddhu Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police 3 Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Claiment , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office I I I Rd Floor, Gurukhrupa Tower, Near I C I C I Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of The Hydra Crane No. C.G. 12 D A 3811 Non Applicant No. 3, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakant Sethi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. MAC No. 1461 of 2017 1 - Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu W/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rameshwar Sahu, S/o Buddhu Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Sunita Sahu, D/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, R/o Village 4 Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Kavita Sahu, D/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramu Sahu, S/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kumari Dipika Sahu, D/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Rameshwar Sahu, R/o Village Khursi, Post Kodwa, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Laxmi Prasad Yadav, Aged About 52 Years R/o Qtr. No. L 83, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Hidra Crane No. C. G. 12, D. A. 3811, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhola Shankar Shriwas, S/o Robind Prasad Shriwas, Aged About 47 Years R/o Banna Chowk Sapna Sadan, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Hidra Crane No. C. G. 12, D. A. 3811, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Beside Of I C I C I Bank, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Hidra Crane No. C. G. 12, D. A. 3811, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Prakant Sethi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 13.7.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 1151/2017 is owner and driver appeal and MAC No. 1461/2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 13.7.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 645/2015. MAC No. 1151/2017 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1 to 6 instituted a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the appellants and respondent No. 3, seeking monetary 6 compensation of Rs. 18,49,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty- Nine Thousand only), on the ground that on the date of the accident, i.e., 02.12.2015, when the deceased Mannu Lal was standing near Banak Chowk and was indicating the side to the vehicle driven by appellant No. 2, the said vehicle dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to them while being taken to the hospital; an offence was registered against appellant No. 2, Jagdish Prasad, the driver of the offending vehicle, and a charge-sheet was filed, and at the time of his death, the deceased was about 20 years of age and was working as a helper with appellant No. 1, engaged in cleaning vehicles and earning Rs. 7,500/- per month, whereafter the applicants filed the claim petition against the non-applicants for compensation under various heads, which was resisted by non-applicants No. 1 and 2 on the ground that no accident had occurred involving their vehicle and that the accident was caused by some other vehicle, further submitting that in case the Tribunal held otherwise, the liability would lie upon the insurance company, while non-applicant No. 3/insurance company also contested the claim by stating that the accident did not occur with the insured vehicle, that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, the vehicle lacked a fitness certificate and permit, the seating capacity was violated, the deceased was not a third party, and thus there was a breach of policy conditions absolving it of liability; however, the learned Claims Tribunal, after recording the 7 evidence and hearing the parties, partly allowed the claim on 13.07.2017 in Claim Case No. 645/2015 and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- under various heads. 3. 5,76,000/- under various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious errors of law and fact while passing the impugned award, rendering it liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the FIR (Ex. A-2) to conclude that the deceased fell from the vehicle, ignoring the consistent evidence of witnesses and the claimants which clearly establishes that the deceased was standing on the roadside and signalling the vehicle at the time of the accident. The finding that the deceased was sitting on the vehicle is therefore erroneous and unsupported by evidence. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly held that there was a violation of policy conditions on the ground of seating capacity, overlooking the fact that the insurance policy (Ex. D-1) shows payment of additional premium of Rs. 50/- for “Legal Liability for Operation/Maintenance for one person,” which covers a helper or cleaner, and is further supported by the provisions of IMT-28 and IMT-39, thereby extending contractual liability to such persons. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the insurance company, having accepted the additional premium, is contractually bound to indemnify the insured, and thus could not have been exonerated from liability. It is further submitted that the insurance company failed to discharge its burden of proof, as neither the informant nor the scribe of the FIR was examined, and 8 the FIR, being not a substantive piece of evidence, could not have been given precedence over sworn testimony before the Tribunal. Moreover, the contents of the FIR were not duly proved and were specifically denied by the claimants. The Tribunal also erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 25 years, despite the age of his father being 40 years, which clearly indicates that the deceased was about 20 years old at the time of the accident. Additionally, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the annual income at Rs. 54,000/-, made improper deductions towards personal expenses, and applied an incorrect multiplier of 18, resulting in excessive and inflated compensation. The amounts awarded under other heads, including loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, are also highly excessive. Overall, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at erroneous findings, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- 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. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 7 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the 9 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record, and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has recorded well-reasoned findings on the issues of negligence, liability, and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the FIR and other supporting materials, and no perversity or illegality is found in its conclusions. The contentions raised by the appellants regarding violation of policy conditions, liability of the insurance company, age, income, and multiplier of the deceased, as well as the quantum awarded under various heads, have been duly considered and correctly decided by the Tribunal. 8. This Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 13.07.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 645/2015. 9. Accordingly, the appeal (MAC No. 1151/2017) being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, and the award of the learned Claims Tribunal to the extent of liability part is affirmed. 10 MAC No. 1461/2017 10. Brief facts of the case, is that on the date of the accident, i.e., on 02.12.2015, the deceased Mannu Lal was standing near Bannam Chowk and was indicating the side of the vehicle when the vehicle driven by respondent No. 1 dashed against him, as a result of which Mannu Lal sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body and was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Bilaspur, but he died on the way to the hospital; that, due to the sudden demise of Mannu Lal, his father, mother, brother, and sister filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 18,49,000/-, pleading that the deceased was working as a helper and earning Rs. 200/- per day along with Rs. 50/- per day as allowance, thereby claiming his total monthly income to be Rs. 7,500/-; that, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply stating that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 and, therefore, they were not liable to satisfy the award and the liability ought to be fastened upon the insurer; that, respondent No. 3 filed his reply contending that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to satisfy the award; and that, on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned MACT framed four issues and decided all of them in favour of the appellants, however, it failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased and wrongly fastened the liability upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 11 despite the premium having been received by respondent No. 3. 11. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 27,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 27,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the appellants/claimants are the parents and siblings of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,86,000/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- in favour of the parents and siblings of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- 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. 13. 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. 12 14. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the same. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, 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. 5,860/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 70,320/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay 13 Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 28,128/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 98,448/-. 19. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the appellant/claimants are the parents and siblings of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 49,224/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 49,224/-. 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. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,86,032/-. 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. (40,000X6+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. parents and siblings of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,10,032/- in the following manner:- 14 S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,86,032/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). Rs. 2,88,000/- 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. 12,10,032/- 20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,10,032/-. After deducting Rs. 5,76,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,34,032/-. 21. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 1461/2017) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. parents and siblings of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,34,032/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna