1 2026:CGHC:12106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 217 of 2018 1 - Mahesh Yadav S/o Deenu Yadav Aged About 23 Years Occupation- Driver Of The Offending Vehicle. 2 - Bisendera Das Manikpuri S/o Homandas Aged About 22 Years Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Aged About 22 Years. Both are R/o At Village Sihad P. O. Kosmarra, Tehsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants. versus 1 - Ganeshuram S/o Sonsay Yadav Aged About 45 Years. 2 - Munni Bai W/o Ganeshu Ram Yadav Aged About 35 Years. 3 - Dhaneshwari Bai W/o Manharan Yadav Aged About 22 Years. 4 - Ku. Pruvi Yadav D/o Manharan Yadav Aged About 10 Month. Appellant No.4 is Minor Through Guardian Mother Dhaneshwari Yadav. All are R/o At Village- Deori, P. O. Kosmarra, Tehsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. .......................(Claimants). 5- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through-Branch Manager, Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Lalgana, Shoping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 492001. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.03.19 11:21:04 +0530 2 ... Respondents. For Appellants : Shri Devendra Kumar Swarnakar appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocates. For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma appears on behalf of Shri Anil Gulati, Advocates. For Respondent No.5 : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 13/03/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.4/2018, application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading proposed Respondent No.5/Insurance company as party. 2. Since the matter is being finally disposed of and the appeal pertains to the year 2018, the aforesaid application is allowed and proposed Respondent No.5 is made party respondent to this appeal. 3. This owner’s Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dhamtari C.G. in Claim Case No.80/16, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,92,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants/Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The compensation was directed to carry 6% per annum interest from the date of award till its realization. 4. In this appeal, Respondents No.1 to 4/claimants have also filed cross- appeal/objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC contending that the 3 compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side which may be modified in their favour. 5. The facts briefly stated are that the claimants/ respondent no.1 to 4 had filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1994 (for short the Act) on account of the death of deceased Manharan Yadav in an accident that took place on 12/01/2016. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased along with the appellants was travelling in the Motor Cycle namely Honda bearing No. C.G. 05/X/7119 which belonged to Appellant No.2. They were coming from Village Bhakra towards Village Shihad, when they reached near Bittu Dhaba near Bhakhra-Dhamatari Road, the driver/Appellant No.1 of the motor cycle drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, motor cycle jumped and Maharan Yadav fell down from the motor cycle and got severe injuries over head and other parts of the body. For treatment, the deceased was taken to Bathera hospital Dhamatari and later shifted to Mekhara Hospital Raipur and during the treatment, he took his last breath on 14.01.2016. It was further pleaded by the claimants that the family members of deceased were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The claimants filed claim of Rs.59,00,000/- as compensation. Notices of the claim application were issued. The appellant's no. 1 and 2 filed the written statement and pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license. The appellant No.2 has deposited Rs.25,000/- for preferring the 4 appeal (Annexure A/2). The claimants filed the application before the tribunal that they have lodged the report before Police Station Bhakhara, the concerned police station registered the Criminal Case no. 49/16, the claimants further pleaded in the para 6 of the claim application that they did not know the offending vehicle was insured or not, as and when they came to know they made the necessary party. Appellant no.2 owner had submitted the documents of registration of vehicle and copy of the insurance policy i.e. ICICI Lombard before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal after considering that no documentary evidence has been produced with regard to the income of the deceased, held the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Since there were two dependents upon the deceased, 1/3 of the monthly income which comes to Rs.2,000/- was held personal expenses and accordingly, yearly dependence was held to be Rs.24,000/-. Deceased was aged about 25 years and by applying the multiplier of 18, Rs.4,32,000/- was calculated to be the quantum for dependence. Funeral expenses to be Rs.10,000/-, for loss of spousal consortium Rs.25,000/- and for loss of parental consortium Rs.25,000/- and thereby, total of Rs.4,92,000/- was granted as compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the owner and driver/appellants of the offending vehicle holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having requisite license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. According to 5 him, the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, as such, the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award. There is contradiction in the evidence of eye witness, as such, the owner cannot be held liable since involvement of the vehicle is itself doubtful. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of proposed Respondent No.5/Insurance company submits that before the Tribunal, they were not party, however, before this Court, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as party Respondent No.5 has been filed. He submits that even if the Insurance Company is being impleaded as party respondent then also it would hardly make any difference since driver of the vehicle was not having valid license at the time of accident. 9. Learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants sought enhancement of compensation and submits that the income has not been considered by the Tribunal properly and assessement towards some heads is on the lower side, which needs to be reassessed favourably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 & National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11.In the present case, as per seizure memo (Ex.P. 10 and 11), the driver's 6 driving license has not been seized and neither the driving licence has been produced by the appellants during evidence. Further, As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was given by the vehicle owner to a driver without a driving licence. Hence, it appears that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was driven by appellants Nos. 1 and 2 without a driving licence. The Tribunal has given a finding in this regard which has not been rebutted by the owner and driver of the vehicle/appellant Nos.1 and 2. 12.As such, it appears that the vehicle was being driven by the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in the contravention of Insurance Policy and even if the vehicle is insured, it will not make any difference as regards imposition of liability. 13. In the charge sheet (Ex.P/1) as well as in the FIR (Ex.P/2) , the offending vehicle has been named after due investigation and upon perusal of record, nothing comes to suggest that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. As such, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 14. Now, I shall deal with the cross-appeal filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking enhancement on the amount of compensation. 15. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 150-200 per month from his work, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs.3000/-. However, in absence of documentary evidence, one must consider the nature of the occupation, the date of the accident, the price 7 index and the cost of living etc, particularly the Minimum Wages notified by the Labour Department. Upon considering these factors, I find it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6107/- as per the minimum wages, thus, the annual income comes to Rs. 73,284/-. In view of the judgment rendered in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), a 40% addition towards future prospects (Rs. 29,313/-) is applicable, bringing the annual income to Rs.1,02,597/-. 16. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants are the wife – Respondent No3 and one children –Respondent No.4, while Respondent No.1 and 2 are mother and father, a deduction of 25% (Rs.25,649/-) is made towards personal and living expense, resulting in an annual dependency of Rs. 76,948/-. In view of the principles laid down in the judgments rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), and considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 18 is applied. Thus, the total dependency works out to Rs. 13,85,064/-. 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). Further, in view of the principles laid down in the judgment rendered in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the claimants (wife and one children, mother and father) are further entitled to Rs.48,000/-x4 i.e. Rs1,92,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, 8 the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 16,13,064/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency (income p.m. x 12 + future prospects – deduction x multiplier) (Rs.6107/- x 12 + Rs.29,313/- -Rs.25,649 x 18) Rs. 13,85,064/- 02 Towards consortium along with increase of 10% in every three years.(Rs.48,000/-x 4) Rs. 1,92,000/- 03 Towards loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs.16,13,064/- 17. Accordingly, the total compensation is recomputed at Rs.16,13,064/-. After deducting Rs 4,92,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement amounts to Rs.11,21,064/-. 18.Accordingly, the claimants/Respondent No.1 to 4 would be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.11,21,064/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which shall be paid by the 9 appellants herein within 90 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 25.04.2016 till its realization. 19.Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas the cross-appeal/objection filed by the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. 21.Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal concerned. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash