Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:36634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 659 of 2017 1 - Smt Samarin Bai W/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhat Bai D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Devki D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station 2 Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hemcharan S/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Samarin Bai, R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kumari Rameshwari D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Samarin Bai, R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Punimati W/o Late Firtu Ram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chatipali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Present Address R/o Village Chorbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 3 1 - Lokraj Sahu S/o Sonauram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chotbhatthi, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Khajri, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Peni Sula Business Park, Tower A 15 Janpad Rao, Pamad Mark Lower Parel Mumbai- Branch Office Office No. 403, 4th Floor D.B.C.T. Corporate Park Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. 4 MAC No. 605 of 2017 1 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Peni Sula Business Park, Tower-A, 15 Janpad Rao Padam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Branch Office-403, 4th Floor, D.B.City, Corporate Park, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhatbai D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Devki D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 18 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. 5 Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hemcharan S/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 16 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu, R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kumari Rameshwari D/o Late Lalit Sahu, Aged About 15 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Samarinbai Wd/o Late Lalit Sahu, R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Punimati Wd/o Late Firtu Ram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Chatipali, Thana And Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Lokraj Sahu S/o Soanu Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Chorbhatti, Thana Sarwiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 8 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Khajri, Thana Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C.G.13 L A 2770, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. Advocate. to 6 For Respondents No. 7 : None. to 8 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 28/07/2025 Order on Board 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 21.02.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 605/2017 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 659/2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 80/2015. MAC No. 605/2017 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 was the wife, children and mother of the deceased, namely, 7 Mr. Lalit Kumar Sahu a claim application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 48.45 lakhs under various heads. It was pleaded that the appellant was the insurer of the Tractor Vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-13-LA-2770 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) and that respondents No. 7 and 8 were the driver and owner respectively. The appellant was impleaded in compliance with Section 170 of the Act. As per the claim, on 10.05.2015 at about 10:30 a.m., the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle route to Village Urja Nagar Tamnar, when respondent No. 7 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the deceased to fall and sustain fatal injuries. A report was lodged with the concerned police station and Crime No. 54/2015 was registered, followed by submission of the final investigation report to the criminal court. It was also claimed that the deceased was aged about 38 years and worked as a building mason, mixture machine operator and agricultural laborer, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Respondents No. 7 and 8 denied all allegations and stated that the vehicle was insured and the driver held a valid and effective license. The appellant also denied liability, claiming the deceased was traveling along with multiple persons in violation of the Act, that the insurance policy did not cover such risk, and that the deceased did not fall under 8 the definition of a third party. The Tribunal has framed issues based on the pleadings and ultimately held that the deceased was not a passenger in the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was used in contravention of Rule 28 of the Road Regulations, 1989. The appellant contends the Tribunal’s order is arbitrary, legally flawed, and based on a misappreciation of the evidence, and that the awarded compensation is excessive. The appellant deposited Rs. 25,000/- for preferring this appeal within the period of limitation. An exemption application was filed for non- submission of a certified order sheet under Section 170, as the appellant was already impleaded in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Sheela Dutta & Ors. and Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla & Ors. Hence, this appeal has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the Tribunal's order. 3. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 13,500/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 40,500/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 to 40 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and 9 mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,07,500/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,77,500/- in favour of the wife, children and mother of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned claims Tribunal is erroneous, legally unsustainable and contrary to both the evidence and established principles of law. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy as his risk was excluded under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that he was traveling in a tractor, a vehicle designed solely for the driver’s use. He further submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and fell from it is unsupported by any cogent evidence and directly contradicts the record. The FIR and Final Investigation Report unequivocally state that the deceased was involved with the offending vehicle, and the Tribunal’s conclusion to the contrary is perverse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 10 matter of Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corp. (2009) 13 SCC 530, and Mangle Himachal Road Transport Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656, has consistently held that FIRs and police reports are admissible and crucial for determining the facts of the incident in accident claims. The Tribunal’s failure to consider these vital documents renders its decision flawed. He further submits that the tribunal has erred in classifying the deceased as a third party under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as he was traveling in the tractor in violation of authorized use, thereby excluding the insurer’s liability. The Tribunal’s arbitrary approach to compensation, including its excessive award, is not supported by material evidence, especially considering that the claimants failed to provide reliable documentary proof of the deceased’s income and occupation. He further submits that the Tribunal’s decision for grant 50% towards future prospects addition is contrary to settled law, as the deceased, being self-employed and in the age group of 35-40 years, should only have been entitled to a 40% future prospects enhancement on his notional income. He further submits that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that the insurance policy covered only risks arising from authorized use, and the offending vehicle was being operated in violation of Rule 28 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, further disqualifying the claimants from 11 compensation. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,77,500/- 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. 6. None for respondent Nos. 7 & 8 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants 12 have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- 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. 3,000/- 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. 5787/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 69,444/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.27,778/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 97,222/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 to 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 34,305/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 62,917/-. 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 13 Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,43,755/-. 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. wife, children and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,67,755/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,43,755/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 2,88,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 12,67,755/- 14 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,67,755/-. After deducting Rs. 7,77,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,90,255/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,90,255/- 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. MAC No. 659/2017 14. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellants have filed a claim application for accident compensation before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda (C.G.), District Baloda Bazar, seeking compensation for the death of Lalit Sahu, who died in an accident on 10/05/2015 at about 10:30 a.m. On the said date and time, Lalit Sahu was traveling in a tractor bearing registration No. CG-13-LA-2770 from Village Urja Nagar, Tamnar. Near Taraimal Banjari Mandir, close to a bridge. Respondent No.1 who was driving the tractor, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing Lalit Sahu to fall from the tractor. The wheel of the tractor ran over his body, causing grievous 15 injuries. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The incident was reported at Police Station Panjipathra, District Raigarh (C.G.), where Crime No. 54/2015 was registered under Section 304A of the IPC, and a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Gharghoda, District Raigarh against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was the driver, Respondent No. 2 was the owner and Respondent No.3 was the New India Insurance Company Limited and the insurer of the offending vehicle. All respondents have filed written statements before the Claims Tribunal, denying negligence and raising other defenses, including alleged policy violations. After framing issues and evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,77,500/- to the appellants, which they claim is inadequately low. 15. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 13,500/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 40,500/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 to 40 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,07,500/-. 16 Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,77,500/- in favour of the wife, children and mother of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,77,500/- 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. 17. 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. 18. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17 20. 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. 21. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- 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. 3,000/- 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. 5787/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 69,444/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 34,722/-, the annual income comes to 18 Rs. 1,04,166/-. 23. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 to 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 26,041/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 78,125/-. 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 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,71,875/-. 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. wife, children and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 14,95,875/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 19 01 02 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 11,71,875/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 2,88,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X6+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 14,95,875/- 24. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 14,95,875/-. After deducting Rs. 7,77,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,18,375/-. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,18,375/- 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 Raghu Jat