Chattisgarh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Prafulla Ganesh Mandavi on 31 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:37566
SYED
ROSHAN NAFR
ZAMIR ALI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 266 of 2021
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anupama Chowk Jagdalpur
District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Through T.P. Hub/divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co Ltd. Magarpara Road
Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Prafulla Ganesh Mandavi Wd/o Late Ganesh Narasu
Mandavi Aged About 42 Years
2. Vikramaditya S/o Late Ganesh Narasu Mandavi Aged About
23 Years
3. Avinash Ganesh Mandavi S/o Late Narsu Mandavi Aged
About 21 Years
4. Vandana Mandavi D/o Late Ganesh Narsu Mandavi Aged
About 20 Years
5. Ravina D/o Late Ganesh Narasu Mandavi Aged About 18
Years
All are R/o Gongwada Bhamragarh District Gadhchirouli
(M.H.) (Above all are claimants)
6. Jagdish Pujari S/o Shri Kantaiya Pujari Aged About 30 Years
R/o Patelpara Musalur Police Station Kotwali Bijapur District
Bijapur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle),
2
7. Goverdhan Katla S/o Late Shankaraiya Katla Aged About 53
Years R/o Tahsilpara Bijapur Police Station Kotwali Bijapur
District Bijapur Chhattisgarh (Owner of the offending Vehicle)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsiyaan, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. P.K. Dhurundhar, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
31/7/2025
1) This appeal is filed by appellant Insurance Company challenging the
award dated 150/2022 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal”).
2) Brief facts of the case are that claimants-respondent No.1 to 5 herein
have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.19,15,000/- against the death of Ganesh Narasu Mandavi in a
motor vehicular accident caused by Force Toofan vehicle bearing
registration No.CG18-K-5294 due to rash and negligent driving by its
driver.
3) Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed
joint reply to claim application and denied the averments made
therein. They pleaded that non-applicant No.1 driver was driving the
offending vehicle cautiously and deceased himself was responsible for
the accident. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured
3
with non-applicant No.3, driver was having valid and effective license
and therefore, insurance company is liable for compensation.
4) Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply to claim application pleading
that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not
possessing valid and effective driving license. As per FIR, accident
was caused by vehicle bearing No.CG18-H-1451. Accident occurred
while deceased was crossing the road.
5) Learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim
application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.7,63,000/- along with
interest @ 9% p.a. and held the non-applicants, jointly and severally,
liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants.
6) Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company would submit that
it is the case of false implant of vehicle bearing registration mark
CG18-K-5294 (Force Toofan) in accident, whereas accident was
caused by vehicle bearing registration No.CG18-H-1451 (709). He
contended that immediately after a few hours of accident, FIR was
lodged in police station specifically mentioning therein that deceased
Ganesh Narsu Mandavi was dashed by vehicle bearing registration
No.CG18-H-1451 (709). However, during investigation, police in
collusion with owner of said vehicle has seized vehicle bearing
registration No.CG18-K-5294 (Force Toofan) and accordingly, final
report was submitted against driver of vehicle Force Toofan, which
4
infact was not involved in the accident in question, only to take undue
advantage of its insurance with appellant. He next contended that
Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-fourth towards personal and
living expenses of deceased overlooking the fact that children of
deceased are major on the date of accident and as such, they cannot
be considered to be dependent on deceased. He further submits that
date of birth of deceased in his adhaar card is mentioned as ‘1.1.1973’
and thus, on the date of accident, age of deceased was 45 years 8
months and 6 days, therefore, appropriate multiplier would be ’13’ in
instead of ’14’.
7) Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 -claimants vehemently
opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits
that there is no dispute that accident was reported in concerned police
station within few hours of accident, mentioning registration number of
vehicle that caused accident as ‘CG18-H-1451 (709)’, however, the
informant of FIR was not the eyewitness of accident though present
nearby the spot. Eyewitness of accident are Komti Chaitu and
Chandaiya Partagiri. He contends that during course of investigation,
statement of aforementioned eyewitnesses were recorded and based
upon which vehicle that has caused accident was seized by the police
i.e. offending vehicle, and after completion of investigation, charge
sheet was also submitted against its driver. He also submits that
eyewitness Komti Chaitu was examined as AW-2 and Sarju Madkami,
5
lodger of FIR, was also examined as AW-3 before the Claims Tribunal.
AW-2 has clearly stated in his evidence that he was travelling along
with deceased, it is Force Toofan vehicle bearing No.CG18-K-5294
which dashed deceased and after the accident another vehicle
stopped near the place of accident. Suraj Madkamni (AW-3) in his
evidence has clarified as to how he has informed registration number
‘CG18-H-1459 (709)’ to the police and that, he got knowledge after
lodging of FIR that offending vehicle is Force Toofan bearing No.
CG18-K-5294. In course of investigation, police seized the vehicle
which caused accident. He next contended that deduction of one-
fourth towards personal expenses and application of multiplier by the
Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs DTC, reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121.
He further submitted that the claimants have also filed cross-
appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation on the
ground that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased on
lower side; no amount is not added in the income of deceased
towards future prospects and even compensation under the head of
loss of consortium is denied to claimants No.2 to 5 and 4, who are
sons of deceased. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation
suitably.
6
8) Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record.
9) As regard first submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance
Company that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, was
falsely implanted. Perusal of the record would show that date and time
of accident is 6.9.2018 at 4:30 p.m., as mentioned in FIR (Ex.P-2).
Information of accident was given to concerned police station on the
same day at about 18:30 hrs (6:30 pm.) i.e. within few hours of
accident. In FIR, it is mentioned that accident was caused by driver of
vehicle bearing registration No. CG18-H-1451 (709). From the
contents of FIR, it is appearing that after occurrence of accident when
Sarju Madkami turned back, he saw that one vehicle was standing
near the place of accident and its driver was not there. From the
aforementioned facts available in FIR, it is clear that though informant
of FIR was present near the place of accident, but he could not able to
see the act of dashing of deceased by vehicle. Claimants in support
of pleadings have examined eyewitness to accident namely Komti
Chaitu, who in his statement clearly stated in his statement that at the
time of accident, two vehicles were coming together, one was Force
Toofan whose number was CG18-K-5294 and another was 709
(CG18-H-1451), against which report was lodged. He in clear terms
stated that it is Force Toofan vehicle that dashed the deceased due to
which he fell down on road and suffered grievous injuries. He further
stated in categorical terms that after accident, other vehicle which was
7
reported by the informant, stopped immediately nearby the place of
accident, due to fear its driver fled from place of accidetn leaving the
vehicle. Sarju was also examined as AW-3 before Claims Tribunal
and he clearly deposed that he did not see actual happening of
accident but saw vehicle 709 bearing registration No.CG18-H-1451
standing near the place of accident, its driver was not in vehicle,
therefore, he suspected that accident was caused by said vehicle and
accordingly, he lodged report. Thereafter he has clarified that from
the eyewitnesses of accident namely Komti Chaitu and Chandaiya
Partagiri, he came to know about involvement of other vehicle in the
accident i.e. Force Toofan bearing registration No.CG18-K-5294.
10) Along with copies of documents of criminal case, the claimants have
also enclosed statements of Sarju Madkami, Komti Chaitu Pungati
and Chandaiya Partagiri recorded in Criminal Case pending against
the driver in the Court of learned CJM, South Bastar Dantewada. In
the statement recorded before the CJM, Sarju Madkami has clearly
admitted that by mistake he informed that vehicle bearing registration
No.CG18-H-1451 (709) had caused accident and later on, he came to
know from the eyewitnesses of accident that accident was caused by
vehicle Force Toofan No.CG18-K-5294.
11) Eyewitnesses who were examined in claim case, were also examined
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in that proceeding also they
8
have made statement in tune of their statement before the Claims
Tribunal.
12) In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and
others, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed thus;
“8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1 as
well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in
front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without
giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW-1 &
PW-3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal
evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High
Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only
due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to
be noted that PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and
PW-3, who has given statement before the police, was
examined as eye-witness. In view of such evidence on
record, there is no reason to give weightage to the
contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence
before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the
First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded
before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the
contents of the First Information Report. In the judgment,
relied on by the appellant’s counsel in the case of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla
and Others, 2007 (13) SCC 476 , this Court has held
that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the
driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for
maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act.
9
In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an
accident could also be proved from the First Information
Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and
Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2018 (6)
SCC 765, this Court has held, on facts, that the car of
the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which
was proceeding in front of the same, was driven
negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as
contemplated under Road Regulations, framed under
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether driver of the vehicle
was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket
formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of
the case and evidence on record. Having regard to
evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the
view that both the judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant, would not render any
assistance in support of his case.”
13) From the above facts of the case and evidence available in record,
more particularly evidence of eyewitnesses and informant of FIR, in
the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any
error in recording finding that accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. Hence, I do not find
any force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that offending vehicle was involved in
accident and the same is repelled.
14) Coming to second submission of learned counsel for appellant that
standard deduction towards personal expenses of deceased and
10
multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal is incorrect. Perusal of the
claim application would show that it is filed by five claimants, who are
widow and major sons of deceased aged about 21, 20 and 18 years
respectively. However, there is no evidence available in record that
major sons of deceased are married and residing separately with their
respective family. There is also no whisper that they are having
sufficient independent income for their livelihood. In absence of any
such material on record, in the opinion of this Court, submission of
learned counsel for appellant that major sons of deceased cannot be
considered as dependent is not sustainable and it is repelled.
15) So far as deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses of
deceased is concerned, claim application is filed by five claimants,
who are respondents No.1 to 5 before this Court. As per decision in
case of Sarla Verma (supra), where number of dependent family is 4
to 6, there shall be deduction of one-fourth towards personal
expenses. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal rightly
applied deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses of
deceased and it is affirmed.
16) So far as application of multiplier is concerned, in case of Sarla Verma
(supra) it is held that where deceased was in the age group of 41 to
45 years, multiplier of 14 will be applicable and where deceased was
in the age group of 46 to 50 years, multiplier of 13 will be applicable.
11
In case at hand, there is no suggestive piece of evidence that
deceased has attained age of 46 years on the date of accident. True
it is that as per date of birth of deceased (1.1.1973) mentioned in
adhaar card annexed with application filed on behalf of appellant
under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the date
of accident, age of deceased was 45 years 8 months and 6 days.
Even if submission of learned counsel for appellant based on date of
birth mentioned in adhaar card of deceased is to be accepted, then
also it is evident from the adhaar card itself that the deceased has not
attained age of 46 years. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court,
submission of learned counsel for appellant that at the time of
accident, age of deceased was 45 years 8 months and 6 days,
therefore, multiplier of 13 would be applicable is not sustainable and it
is repelled.
17) As regards cross-appeal/cross objection filed on behalf of claimants
seeking enhancement in quantum of compensation, as per pleadings
and evidence of claimants, the deceased was agriculture labour and
earing Rs.6,000/- per month. However, since the claimants did not
produce any admissible piece of evidence substantiating their claim
with respect to occupation and income of deceased, the Claims
Tribunal has taken monthly income of deceased as Rs.5,500/- on
notional basis. The reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for fixing
income of deceased on notional basis appears to be justified, which
12
does not call for interference. However, the notional income so fixed
by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side. Now-a -days even
an unskilled worker gets more than Rs.6,,000/- per month. Thus,
considering that the deceased was an agriculture worker and
permanent resident of State of Maharashtra, I deem it proper to fix his
monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, as pleaded by the claimants themselves
in claim application. It is ordered accordingly.
18) A glance of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal
while assessing income of deceased, has not added anything towards
future prospects. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, while determining income of deceased, 25% of
established income is to be added towards future prospects where the
deceased was self employed and in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
Thus, the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects in the
income of deceased while assessing loss of dependency. Therefore,
there shall be addition of 25% of established income of deceased
towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
19) Perusal of impugned award further reveals that while computing
compensation, Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of
consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in the matter of
13
Pranay Sethi (supra) and of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,,
according to which each claimant is entitled to consortium under
spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are
wife/husband, parents and children at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each.
Respondents No.2 to 5 being sons of the deceased are therefore
entitled for parental consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each.
However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of compensation under the
aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and
loss of estate, is to be increased @ 10% after every three
years, which will make the compensation payable to claimants
under the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44,000/- (10% of
40000 + 40000); loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000
+ 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000
+ 15000). It is ordered accordingly.
20) For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate quantum of
compensation.
21) Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month
and after adding 25% towards future prospects, the monthly income
of deceased would come to Rs.7,500/- and annual income would be
Rs.90,000/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-
14
third, annual dependency would come to Rs.67,500/-. Applying
multiplier of 14, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency
would be Rs.9,45,000/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a
sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 5
are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each i.e. total Rs.1,76,000/-, for loss of
parental consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters
of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid
amount, appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,500/- for funeral
expenses and Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.11,98,000/-. The enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of
application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount
disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.
22) In the result, the appeal filed by appellant Insurance Company is
dismissed. Cross-appeal filed on behalf of claimants-respondent No.1
to 5 is allowed in part. The impugned award stands modified to the
extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-