Chattisgarh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Surujbai on 16 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12563
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
AVINASH
AVINASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.28
14:14:25
+0530
MAC No. 1181 of 2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office 16 R.S.S.
Market, Power House, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg.
... Appellant.
versus
1 - Smt. Surujbai W/o Late Ishwar Sinha, Aged About 34 Years.
2 - Rekhchand, S/o Late Ishwar Sinha Aged About 14 Years.
3 - Sandeep S/o Late Ishwar Sinha, Aged About 11 Years.
4 - Ramadhin S/o Bhurwa Sinha, Aged About 55 Years.
5 - Smt. Nemkunwar Bai W/o Ramadhin Sinha, Aged About 50 Years.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 minor through mother Respondent No.1
Smt. Surujbai w/o Late Ishwar Sinha. All caste Kalar, all R/o
Village Belgaon Tehsil Chhuikhdan, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)
2
6 – Ramjan Beg S/o Gulbeg Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Ninwa, Post Ninwa, Tehsil And Thana And District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh. (Owner)
… Respondents.
For Appellant : Shri Shashank Agrawal appears on behalf of
Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocates.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Judgment on Board
16/03/2026
1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against
the award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.
in Claim Case No.74/2014, whereby compensation to the tune of
Rs.4,34,000/- has been awarded in favour of
claimants/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 which was directed to be paid
by appellant/Insurance Company and Respondent No.6. The
compensation was directed to carry 6% per annum interest from
the date of claim petition till its realization.
2. The facts of the case as per the claimants are that on 01-01-2014
at about 3.00 PM, deceased Ishwar Sinha was driving one motor
cycle, and at the same time from the front side, another offending
3
Motor Cycle no. C.G. 07 A.L. 2789 driven by Gulbeg came driven
in a rash manner and dashed the above motor cycle driven by
Ishwar Sinha, and due to accident both Ishwar Sinha and Gulbeg
died. Due to death of driver Ishwar Sinha, this claim petition was
filed, before tribunal. That in this claim petition, owner and
Insurance company of this motor cycle no. C.G. 07 L.G. 8223
driven by Ishwar Sinha, were necessary party, and in absence of
necessary party, above claim petition was liable to dismissed.
Against driver Gulbeg, for offending motor cycle no. C.G. 07 A.L.
2789, FIR was lodged, as per para 17 of award but due to death
of above driver Gulbeg, above criminal report was dropped by the
police. That, even after demand of document of driving licence of
driver Gulbeg by appellant insurance company through notice to
produce document from owner of offending motor cycle no. C.G.
07 A.L. 2789, but no document of driving licence could be
supplied by respondent no. 6 Ramjan Beg in compliance of
section 134 M.V. Act, but tribunal wrongly awarded, against the
appellant insurance company, which may be considered by this
Court. That the tribunal has wrongly awarded excess
compensation, which may be considered. Further, the tribunal has
wrongly awarded penal interest, which may be considered.
Because above accident occurred due to fault of both the motor
cycles and dashed from front side, hence on the basis of
contributory negligence, matter was to be decided by the tribunal.
3. The Tribunal after considering that no documentary evidence has
4
been produced with regard to the income of the deceased, held
the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.36,000/-. 1/3 of the
annual income which comes to Rs.12,000/- was held personal
expenses and accordingly, yearly dependence was held to be
Rs.24,000/-. Deceased was aged about 36 years and by applying
the multiplier of 16, Rs.3,84,000/- was calculated to be the
quantum for dependence. Funeral expenses to be Rs.10,000/-, for
loss of filial consortium Rs.20,000/- and for loss of parental
consortium Rs.20,000/- and thereby, total of Rs.4,34,000/- was
granted as compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company submits
that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle bearing
registration No.CG 07 AL 2789 was being driven by Gulbeg
without driving license as such, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay compensation. He further submits that even after
giving notice to produce document of driving license from
Respondent No.6, no driving license was produced by
Respondent No.6. In compliance of Section 134 of Motor Vehicle
Act, copy of driving license was to be supplied in the record of
Tribunal, however, even after demand, the same was not supplied
by Respondent No.6. As after supply of details of driving license,
Insurance Company will inquire about the genuineness of the said
document of driving license. He lastly submits that in a similar
case arising out of same accident bearing No.MAC/1152/2018,
the Insurance company has been exonerated from the liability by
5
this Court and the penal interest has also been set aside. Thus,
this Court may exonerate the appellant from the liability and set
aside penal interest.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment
passed by division Bench of this Court in the matter of The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ansuiya Bai & Ors in MAC
No.1250 of 2011, decided on 06.09.2012. Relevant paragraph 7
of the said judgment reads as under:-
7. It is not in dispute that in respect of accident which
occurred on 6.4.2010 involving the offending vehicle, a
criminal case has been registered against the
respondent No.6/driver of the offending vehicle for
offences under Sections 279, 337 of 1.P.C. and after
investigation, a charge-sheet for offences under
Section 279, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. and under
Sections 3/181 and 5/181 of the Act has been filed
against the respondents No.6 & 7 ie, driver and owner
of the offending vehicle. As per certified photocopy of
seizure memo, which has been filed on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 5/claimants along with other
documents and marked as (Ex.P-3), driving license of
respondent No.6/driver of the offending vehicle was
not seized by the police whereas other documents
relating to the offending vehicle were seized. Under
Section 134 of the Act, a duty has been cast upon the
6driver of the offending vehicle involved in an accident
to give particulars of his driving license alongwith other
documents to the investigating officer and in
explanation to the abovementioned Section, driver
“includes owner of the vehicle”. From perusal of the
record of Court below, it is found that despite service
of notice upon driver and owner (respondents No.6 &
7) of the offending vehicle, they neither appeared
before the Claims Tribunal nor filed their reply to the
claim petition nor has furnished particulars of the
driving license of driver/respondent No.6 before the
Claims Tribunal for which they were duty bound to
furnish the same as per the provision of Section 134 of
the Act. Neither the owner (respondent No.7) nor the
driver (respondent No.6) had entered into the witness
box to depose that at the relevant point of time, the
driver (respondent No.6) was possessing a valid and
effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
In the absence of particulars of driving license of the
driver (respondent No.6), it was not possible for the
appellant to verify about the genuineness or otherwise
of the driving license of the driver. As such, on the
basis of evidence adduced before the Claims Tribunal
as well as the conduct of the driver (respondent No.6)
and owner (respondent No.7) of the offending vehicle,
7
it stands proved that at the time of accident, the driver
(respondent No.6) was not possessing a valid and
effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle
and the Claims Tribunal has not erred in holding the
same and exonerating the appellant from its liability to
pay compensation.”
6. None for Respondent No.6, though served.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
8. From the perusal of record, it appears that the appellant /
Insurance Company demanded the driving license of deceased
driver Gulbeg from Respondent No.6/owner. In the written
statement filed by him, details of driving license is not reflected. In
the Appeal also, there is no evidence regarding driving license of
deceased driver Gulbeg, therefore, relying upon the judgment
dated 06.09.2012 passed in the matter of Ansuiya Bai & Ors
(referred to above) , the appellant/ Insurance Company cannot
be held liable to pay the compensation due to lack of driving
license of driver of offending vehicle. The witness of
appellant/Insurance company namely Punit Kumar Dewangan
(NAW-1) has also deposed that at the time of accident, driver
/Gulbeg of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective
driving license.
9. In view of such, the appellant / Insurance Company is exonerated
from the liability to pay the compensation.
8
10. So far as penal interest is concerned, it is also set aside in light of
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. {(2004) 2 SCC
370}.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. In a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o
Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of
2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-
“2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that
claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not
take hyper technical approach and ensure that just
compensation is awarded to affected person or
claimants.
3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of
insurance claim compensation in reference to the
motor accident, the court should not take hyper
9technical approach and ensure that just
compensation is awarded to the affected person or
the claimants.”
14. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that
even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the
Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation,
keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the
15. In light of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, this Court of the opinion that in order to do complete justice
the awarded amount in each of the claim case is required to be
enhanced.
16. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-
per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the
income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, the annual income
comes to Rs. 36,000/- 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. 14,400/-,
the annual income comes to Rs. 50,400/-.
17. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 years
and the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein are the wife,
children and parents of the deceased so deduction towards
personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 12,600/-) of the income and
after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs.
10
37,800/-. 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
Pranay Sethi (supra) and also considering the age of the
deceased, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs. 5,67,000/-. 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. (40,000X5+10%
+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs.
2,40,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 to
5/claimants i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased would
become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 8,43,000/- in the
following manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,67,000/-
02 Towards consortium along with Rs. 2,40,000/-
with increase of 10% in every
three years (40,000X5+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/-
11
along with increase of 10% in
every three years.
Total Rs. 8,43,000/-
18. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,43,000/-.
After deducting Rs. 4,34,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the
enhancement would be Rs. 4,09,000/-.
19. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, AIR
2004 SC 1531, the appellant / Insurance Company shall pay the
enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.04,09,000/- alongwith
6 % on the said amount from the date of filing of claim petition till
its realization and would be at liberty to recover it from owner
/Respondent No.6 of the offending vehicle. The said enhanced
amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
20. It is also directed that the enhancement of compensation be
intimated to the claimants/Respondent No.1 to 5 at their given
address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority
(‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA with
a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the
enhanced amount of compensation upon filing suitable proof
before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal.
12
21. The appeal thus partly allowed.
22. Rest of the terms of the impugned award shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash