1 2026:CGHC:2174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1220 of 2023 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Dhamtari, Near Bal Mandir, Main Road Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, C.G. Represented Through In-Charge, Legal Hub, Office-1st, Floor Rama Trade Center, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 433773 Policy No. - 192404/31/2019/4035, Date- 30-10-2018 To 02-10-2019. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rain Bai Kunjam W/o - Late Dhansingh Kunjam Aged About 46 Years R/o - Village Kosumpani, P.O. Kishanpuri, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G........Claimants 2 - Varun Kumar Kunjam S/o - Late Dhansingh Kunjam Aged About 21 Years R/o - Village Kosumpani, P.O. Kishanpuri, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G........Claimants 3 - Ku. Shraddha Kunjam D/o - Late Dhansingh Kunjam Aged About 19 Years R/o - Village Kosumpani, P.O. Kishanpuri, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G........Claimants 4 - Kamlesh Kumar Kunjam S/o Late Dhansingh Kunjam Aged About 17 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Rain Bai Kunjam, W/o - Late Shri Dhansingh Kunjam, R/o - Village Kosumpani, P.O. Kishanpuri, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G........Claimants 5 - Anup Ranjan @ Kamlesh Patel S/o Rajwati Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village- Bitholi, P.S. Ameliya (Wrongly Mentioned As Amliya), District- Sidhi (M.P.)...........Driver. NIRMALA RAO 2 6 - M/s L.C. Katre R/o Vill. Rawakhar, Ward No. - 02, Korba, Tehsil And District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate alongwith Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6: None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. The Insurance Company has challenged both the liability part as well as the quantum assailing the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker in Claim Case No.33 of 2020 dated 8.5.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.36,01,298/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.04.2019 at about 9:00 pm, when deceased Dhansingh Kunjam was returning home on a motorcycle, it was being driven by his friend Ghanshyam Salam, near village Raanwahi Main Road, driver of a Hywa Truck bearing registration No.C.G.12 A S 8334 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, succumbed to death. The claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident and 3 earning Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.38,25,000/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company pleaded that the driver of the motorcycle was negligent and did not have a valid and effective driving license. It is also pleaded that three passengers were traveling on a motorcycle. Thus, it was being driven in contravention to the Motor Vehicles Rules. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 45 years on the basis of the entry made in the postmortem report. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased met with an accident on 17.4.2019, the merg intimation was registered on 18.4.2019 and the FIR was also registered on 18.4.2019 against the unknown vehicle. He would contend that the police seized the offending vehicle Hywa Truck on 19.3.2020 after 11 months. He would submit that there was no evidence to conclude that the offending Hywa Truck was involved in the accident. He would further submit that in absence of any cogent evidence the learned Tribunal should have absolved the liability of the Insurance Company. He would further contend that the driving license of the deceased was produced by the claimants as Ex.P/9, according to which, the date of birth of the deceased was 10.8.1969. Thus, on the date of accident, the age of the deceased was 49 years and 8 months. He would contend that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 14 by considering the age of the deceased as 45 years and would pray to modify the award accordingly. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Deceased - Dhansingh Kunjam met with an accident on 17.4.2019, merg intimation was registered on 18.4.2019 and the FIR was also registered on the same day against an unknown vehicle. The police investigated the matter and thereafter, seized the offending vehicle on 19.3.2020 and filed the final report. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not make any complaint against the registration of the FIR, seizure of the vehicle, or filing of the final report. The Insurance Company also failed to make any complaint before the Superior Authorities and did not conduct any independent investigation with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. 7. In the matter of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the primary concern of the claimant or other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the deceased in his critical condition. The health and well- being of the injured must give priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The relevant paras 9 & 10 are reproduced herein below: “9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order of the High Court is unsustainable. Appellant No. 1 and her husband had received injuries in an accident which took place on 1.6.2007. She lost her husband on 25.6.2007. The primary concern of appellant No. 1 or other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the deceased in his critical condition. The health and well-being of her husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The High Court has 5 proceeded primarily on the basis of information to the Police regarding non-disclosure of the name of the driver of the car in the FIR. Appellant No.1 has filed her examination-in-chief on 1.8.2011 disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle. The owner and the Insurance Company had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in support of their stand that the vehicle number given by her was not involved in the accident. In cross examination, she deposed that she was brought to the hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their vehicle. She deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalized, therefore, she filed the complaint late. 10. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR against Sanjay, driver of the Car. He admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Ex.68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false implication of his vehicle or the driver.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 1900 held that point of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of charge- sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Thus, subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 6 has held in the matter of Ranjeet and Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10351 of 2019, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. 9. In the present case, Smt. Rain Bai, wife of the deceased appeared before the Tribunal and exhibited the final report, FIR, merg intimation, crime details form, postmortem report, seizure memo and the driving license of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company had sufficient opportunity to put questions with regard to non-involvement of the offending vehicle; however, no such suggestions were put to said witness. 10. Virendra Dewangan – Head Constable, examined by the Insurance Company stated that the offending vehicle was seized after due investigation. This witness answered the question put by the Court that the names of the witnesses, on whose instance the offending vehicle was seized, have not been mentioned in the final report. 11. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non-involvement of vehicle in the accident cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. 12. With regard to next argument made by counsel for the appellant, it appears that the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 according to entry of age made in the postmortem report. In the postmortem report, 7 the doctor has mentioned the age of the deceased 45 years. The claimants themselves produced the driving license of the deceased (Ex.P/9), wherein date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 10.8.1969 and thus, on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was more than 49 years. The learned Tribunal should have considered the said document while considering the age of the deceased. As the age of the deceased was more than 49 years, the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 13. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.20,710 x 12 = Rs. 2,48,520/- Rs.20,710 x 12 = Rs. 2,48,520/- 2. Future Prospect (30%) (74,556/-) (2,48,520 + 74,556 = 3,23,076/- (30%) (74,556/-) (2,48,520 + 74,556 = 3,23,076/- 3. Disability (1/4th) (80,769/-) (3,23,076 – 80,769 = 2,42,307/- (1/4th) (80,769/-) (3,23,076 – 80,769 = 2,42,307/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = (2,42,307 x 14 = 33,92,298/-) (x) 13 = (2,42,307 x 13 = 31,49,991/-) 5. Spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- 6. Parental Consortium Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.1,32,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 8. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- TOTAL Rs. 36,01,298/- Rs. 33,58,991/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.36,01,298/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to 8 Rs.33,58,991/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the modified amount, as reduced by this Court, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 15. The interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi