1 2026:CGHC:16848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2071 of 2023 • ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Singnatory R/o Ground Floor, Vanija Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Premin Bai Dhruv W/o Ramu Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ratna Dhruv D/o Ramu Dhruv Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Kumari Saroj Dhruv D/o Ramu Dhruv Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Mother Premin Bai Dhruv, W/o Ramu Dhruv) (Minor). 4. Kumari Nandini Dhruv D/o Ramu Dhruv Aged About 9 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Mother Premin Bai Dhruv, W/o Ramu Dhruv) (Minor). 5. Kumari Sanjana Dhruv D/o Ramu Dhruv Aged About 8 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Mother Premin Bai Dhruv, W/o Ramu Dhruv) (Minor). 6. Bundela Bai W/o Sunder Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Officer Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants 1 To 6). 7. Bhupendra Banjare S/o Shravan Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bawa Mohtara, Tahsil And P.S. - Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg /04/ms/9212). DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 8. Raju Dhriv S/o Panchram Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Devardih, Post Office Koliha, Tahsil And P.S. - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg04/ms/9212) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’), challenging the legality, correctness and validity of the impugned award dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’), Bhatapara, District Balodabazar – Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No.12/2020. 3. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.47,50,000/-, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,15,000/- in favour of the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants on account of death of Ramu Dhruv in an accident that took place on 25.01.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle ‘Tractor’ bearing Registration No.C.G.-04-MS- 9212 by respondent No.7/driver, owned by respondent No.8/owner and insured with the appellant/insurance company. 4. Facts of the case are that a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was filed by the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants, inter alia pleaded that the deceased was riding on his motorcycle along with one Vijay Dhruv, when he was dashed with the offending vehicle, the said offending vehicle was 3 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.7, as a result of the said accident, he passed away. The deceased was aged about 42 years and was working as mason and was also an agriculturist, earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondents No.1 to 6/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed. 5. The appellant and the respondents No.7 & 8 filed their respective written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application filed by the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants. They pleaded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident. Insurance Company also took a plea with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. 6. On the basis of above brought pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and after appreciating the evidence brought on record, decided the same in favour of the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company vehemently argued that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving license. The vehicle being involved in the accident, whereas no accident has occurred with the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Thus, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants submits that the insurance company failed to prove the defence taken by it by cogent and prudent evidence. Driving license of the respondent No.7/driver of the offending vehicle was seized during investigation and charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.7, thus it cannot be said that the offending vehicle was not involved and was 4 driven by a driver not holding the valid and effective driving license. He further submits that a cross objection has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation award. It is further submitted that deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, which occurred on 25.01.2020. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded less compensation and considered the income of the deceased only to Rs.6,000/- per month, which requires suitable enhancement. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. First, this Court would like to deal with the contention of Mr. Agrawal with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle. Though, this ground has not been raised in the memo of appeal, however, from perusal of record, it appears that a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. After due investigation, charge sheet was also filed before the competent Court. The learned Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue No.1 with regard to negligence driving of respondent No.7, categorical held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, which cause the accident. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi & Others Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others, (2009) 13 SCC 530, the contention raised by Mr. Agrawal is hereby repelled. 11. The next contention of Mr. Agrawal with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, on account of that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving license. Perusal of the impugned award and documents would reveal that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was seized during the investigation vide Ex.P/8. Nothing on record, it has not been stated that 5 how the driving license was not valid and effective, no witness from the R.T.O. was examined by the appellant/insurance company. 12. While deciding issue No.2 with regard to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence available on record and decided this issue against the appellant/insurance company. The finding so recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or ignoring evidence available on record, thus this contention is also rejected. 13. Now, this leads me to the submission of Mr. Gulati with regard to the amount of just and proper compensation to be awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants. As per the pleadings of the claim application, deceased was Raj Mason and agriculturist and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but no cogent and prudent evidence has been brought on record in this regard. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000/-, accident occurred on 25.01.2020 and there are 6 dependents upon the income of the deceased including wife, 4 children out of which 3 are minor and mother of the deceased. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record; minimum wages; number of dependents; date of accident and place of working of the deceased, this Court assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.10,000/- per month. 14. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner :- 6 Serial No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.10,000 x 12) 1,20,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,20,000 x 25% Future Prospects = Rs.30,000; 1,20,000 + 30,000 = 1,50,000 1,50,000 3 Income after Deduction towards Personal Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,50,000 / 4 = Rs.37,500; 1,50,000 – 37,500 = Rs.1,12,500) 1,12,500 4 Loss of Dependency after applying Multiplier (Rs.1,12,500 x 14 = Rs.15,75,000) 15,75,000 5 Funeral Expenses 15,000 6 Loss of Estate 15,000 7 Consortium to wife 40,000 8 Filial and Parental Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000) 2,00,000 Total Compensation = 18,45,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 10,15,000 Enhancement in Compensation = 8,30,000 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.8,30,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal till realisation of the enhanced compensation. Appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the names of respondents No.2 & 3 in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years; Rs.1,00,000 each shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the names of respondents No.4 & 5 in a 7 nationalized bank till their attaining majority and; Rs.50,000 shall be disbursed in the account of respondent No.6. Likewise, an amount of Rs.2,50,000 shall be deposited as fixed deposit in the name of respondent No.1 in the same bank for the period of 2 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to respondent No.1 through bank transactions / account payee cheque. 16. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas the cross objection filed by the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants is partly allowed, as indicated hereinabove. 17. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha