Sushil Kumar Singh vs Smt. Sillo Bai And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 116 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sushil Kumar Singh vs Smt. Sillo Bai And Others on 26 February, 2026

                                                 1




Digitally
signed                                                                          NAFR
by
SHAYNA                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KADRI

                                     MAC No. 945 of 2017

            1 - Sushil Kumar Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years
            R/o Ward No.2, Jyoti Nagar, Pali Road, Dipka District Korba,
            Chhattisgarh ............Owner, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   --- Appellant

                                             versus

            1 - Smt. Sillo Bai And Others W/o Late Ramlal Khairwar, Aged About 46
            Years R/o Village Muru, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur,
            Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
            2 - Smt. Ramwati Khairwa W/o Shobha Ram, Aged About 75 Years R/o
            Village Muru, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur,
            Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
            3 - Vimal Das Mahant S/o Dhum Das, R/o Village Bhalpahri,p.O.
            Mudhali, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver,
            District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
            4 - The National Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch
            Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office At 13,
            Meenu Complex, Main Road, Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba,
            Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   --- Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate

1 - Smt. Sillo Bai W/o Late Ram Lal Khairwar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Muru, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - Smt. Ramwati Khairwar (Died And Deleted) As Per Court Order Dated 26-02-2026.

--- Appellant

Versus

1 - Vimal Das Mahant S/o Dhum Das, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhalpahri, P.O. Mudhali, P.S. Kusmunda, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sushil Kumar Singh S/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.2, Jyoti Nagar, Pali Road, Dipka, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Ward No.5, Subhash Nagar, Behind I C I C I Bank, Near Water Tank, Dipka, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Owner, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office At 13, Meenu Complex, Main Road, Kosa Badi, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

Order on Board

26/02/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for deleting

the name of appellant No. 2.

2. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application,

the same is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed

to carry out necessary correction / amendment in the cause-title of

appeal during course of the day.

3. With the consent of parties, the appeals are heard finally.

4. The present appeals are being decided by this common order, as

both arise out of the same award dated 10.03.2017 passed by the

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in

Claim Case No. 104/2016. M.A.C. No. 602 of 2017 has been filed

by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 945 of 2017 has

been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging

the liability imposed upon it by the Tribunal.

5. The case of the claimants is that on 12.12.2015, the deceased,

Ramlal Khairwar, was travelling on his motorcycle from

Chakarbhata to Village Muru. Near Village Chhatauna, in front of

the CSEB Office, his motorcycle dashed against a truck bearing

Registration No. CG-12-C-3023, which was allegedly parked

negligently in the middle of the road without any signal or

indication. Due to the impact, Ramlal Khairwar sustained multiple

grievous injuries and succumbed to them.

6. An offence was registered against the driver of the offending truck

and a charge-sheet was filed. The claimants filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation of Rs. 22,34,000/- under various heads against the

driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck. The owner and

driver contested the claim by submitting that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and

that he was responsible for the accident. They further denied the

alleged income and dependency of the claimants. The insurance

company also filed its reply denying the material averments,

disputing the income and dependency, and contending that the

deceased himself was negligent. It was further pleaded that the

insurer of the motorcycle had not been impleaded as a party.

7. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned

Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a

sum of Rs. 4,71,840/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal

exonerated the insurance company from liability and held the

driver and owner of the offending truck liable to pay the

compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the

claimants have filed M.A.C. No. 602 of 2017 seeking

enhancement. On the other hand, the owner of the offending

vehicle has filed M.A.C. No. 945 of 2017 challenging the findings

regarding liability and the fastening of responsibility upon it.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner of the

offending vehicle in M.A.C. No. 945 of 2017 submits that the

learned Claims Tribunal has acted illegally and with material

irregularity in passing the impugned award dated 10.03.2017,

whereby a sum of Rs. 4,71,840/- has been awarded as

compensation. It is contended that the findings recorded by the

Tribunal are not in accordance with law and are liable to be set

aside. According to the appellant, the award has been passed in a

mechanical manner without proper appreciation of the pleadings

and evidence brought on record by the parties. It is further

submitted that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not

appreciating the material available on record in its correct

perspective. The evidence, both oral and documentary, was not

properly scrutinized, and the conclusions drawn are contrary to

the weight of evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider the specific

defence raised by the appellant regarding negligence and liability,

and thus arrived at an erroneous finding which has resulted in an

unjust award. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal,

without properly considering the material available on record,

proceeded on conjectures and surmises while passing the

impugned award. The findings regarding negligence as well as

fastening of liability upon the appellant are stated to be

unsupported by cogent reasoning. It is argued that the Tribunal

did not record clear and reasoned findings based on evidence but

rather relied upon assumptions, thereby vitiating the award. It is

also urged that the impugned award is illegal, erroneous and

contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of claims

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal

has failed to apply the correct legal parameters while determining

liability and compensation, which has resulted in miscarriage of

justice. The learned counsel further submits that all oral and

documentary evidence placed on record has not been scanned

and appreciated in its true perspective. Relevant aspects of the

defence have been ignored, and the award has been passed

without proper evaluation of the evidence, thereby causing serious

prejudice to the appellant. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed

that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal filed by

the appellant/owner, set aside the impugned award dated

10.03.2017, and grant such other relief as deemed fit in the

interest of justice.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.A.C. No.

602 of 2017 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred

both in law and on facts while determining the amount of

compensation and passing the impugned award dated

10.03.2017. It is contended that the compensation awarded is

wholly inadequate and does not reflect just and fair compensation

as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988. Therefore, the award is liable to be suitably enhanced. It is

further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a

serious error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on

the basis of Rs. 132/- per day under the Minimum Wages Act and

thereby calculating his monthly income as Rs. 3,960/-. Learned

counsel argues that the deceased was not an unskilled labourer

but an experienced and skilled mason as well as an agriculturist,

who was earning Rs. 300/- per day, i.e., approximately Rs. 9,000/-

per month. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral evidence

adduced regarding his income. It is contended that non-production

of documentary proof of income cannot be a ground to discard

reliable oral evidence, particularly in cases involving persons

engaged in informal occupations. The assessment of income at

Rs. 132/- per day is, therefore, arbitrary and liable to be enhanced

to Rs. 9,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that

the Tribunal has erred in ignoring the evidence available on record

regarding the earning capacity of the deceased and, without

proper discussion or reasoning, mechanically adopted minimum

wages. Such an approach, it is argued, has resulted in substantial

reduction of compensation and is contrary to settled principles

governing assessment of income in motor accident claims. It is

also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded very

meagre amounts under conventional heads such as funeral

expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and

affection. The Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate and

reasonable compensation under these heads in accordance with

prevailing legal standards. The inadequate amounts awarded

under these heads have resulted in unjust compensation to the

claimants. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal

has erred in deducting one-third of the income towards personal

expenses and in applying an incorrect multiplier. It is also argued

that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future

prospects. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased,

future prospects ought to have been added at the rate of 50% of

the established income. The failure to grant compensation under

this head has substantially reduced the overall award and

warrants enhancement. It is further contended that the Tribunal

has gravely erred in exonerating the insurance company from its

liability. The defence regarding breach of policy conditions, if any,

is a matter between the insurer and the insured. Even assuming

such breach, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurance

company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the

amount from the owner under the principle of "pay and recover."

The complete exoneration of the insurer has caused grave

hardship to the claimants and is contrary to the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also submits that

the Tribunal erred in holding that the owner failed to prove that the

driver possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

It is argued that the seizure memo indicated that the driving

licence had been seized during investigation, and it was open to

the insurance company to obtain a copy of the licence from the

charge-sheet filed in the criminal case and to verify its

genuineness. The insurer failed to produce any verification report

to establish breach of policy conditions. Despite this, the Tribunal

wrongly shifted the burden upon the owner and exonerated the

insurer, which finding is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated

the oral and documentary evidence on record in its proper

perspective and has arrived at erroneous conclusions, resulting in

an unjust and inadequate award. The impugned award, therefore,

deserves to be modified. On these grounds, it is prayed that this

Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, enhance the

compensation amount by suitably modifying the impugned award,

and fasten liability upon the insurance company to pay the

compensation in the first instance with liberty to recover the same

from the owner of the offending vehicle, in the interest of justice.

11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

12. So far as M.A.C. No. 945 of 2017 filed by the owner of the

offending vehicle is concerned, the principal contention of the

appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability

upon the owner and in exonerating the insurance company.

13. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the Tribunal, after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a

categorical finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the

accident. The owner failed to discharge the burden cast upon him

to prove that the driver was duly licensed. The finding regarding

absence of a valid and effective driving licence is a finding of fact

based on appreciation of evidence on record. No material has

been brought before this Court to demonstrate that the said

finding is perverse or contrary to evidence. In the absence of proof

that the driver was holding a valid licence, the Tribunal was

justified in exonerating the insurance company and fastening the

liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle.

14. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal

committed any illegality or material irregularity in holding the

owner liable to satisfy the award. The contention that the Tribunal

acted on conjectures and surmises is not borne out from the

record. The award, insofar as it relates to liability, is based on

proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the owner of the offending

vehicle, being M.A.C. No. 945 of 2017, is devoid of merits and is

hereby dismissed.

15. Now adverting to M.A.C. No. 602 of 2017 filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of compensation, the principal grievance of

the claimant is that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just

and reasonable compensation, having not properly assessed the

income of the deceased and having omitted to grant future

prospects as well as adequate amounts under the conventional

heads. The contention of the appellants has substance. The

learned Tribunal has not taken into account the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,

wherein it has been held that the income of the deceased must be

enhanced towards future prospects.

16. it is evident that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the

deceased on the basis of Rs. 132/- per day and calculated the

monthly income as Rs. 3,960/-. However, on the date of incident

i.e. 12.12.2015, the applicable minimum wages for an unskilled

labourer for the period 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 were Rs. 5,860/-

per month. The learned Tribunal erred in not taking into

consideration the correct minimum wages applicable at the

relevant time. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is

taken as Rs. 5,860/-. The annual income thus comes to

Rs. 70,320/-. The learned Tribunal further erred in not granting

any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was aged

about 50 years at the time of the accident; therefore, 25% is to be

added towards future prospects. Thus, the total annual income

after addition of future prospects is Rs. 87,900/-. The deduction

of one-third towards personal expenses, as applied by the learned

Tribunal, is found to be correct. After deduction, the annual

contribution to the family comes to Rs. 58,600/-. The multiplier of

13 applied by the learned Tribunal is also found to be appropriate

considering the age of the deceased. Therefore, the loss of

dependency is calculated as Rs. 7,61,800/-. In view of the above

recalculation, the amount comes to Rs. 7,61,800/- under the head

of loss of dependency.

17. As regards compensation under the conventional heads, this

Court finds that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are on the

lower side and not in consonance with the prevailing standards

laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC

130. Therefore, the same deserve suitable enhancement. The

claimant shall be entitled for grant of Rs. 48,000 /- (40,000/- +

10% + 10%)(with increase of 10% in every three years) to the

claimant as compensation towards loss of consortium. The

claimant is 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. Accordingly, the

claimants would become entitled for total compensation of

Rs. 8,45,800 /- in the following manner:-

           S.No.                    Heads                          Calculation

               01.   Towards loss of Income                      Rs. 7,61,800/-

               02.   Towards consortium                          Rs. 48,000/-

               04.   Towards loss of estate                      Rs. 18,000/-

               05.   Towards Funeral Expenses                    Rs. 18,000/-

                                    Total                        Rs. 8,45,800/-



 18. Accordingly,        the    total     compensation      is     enhanced       to

         Rs.   8,45,800/-    from   Rs.     4,71,840/-.   Thus,     there   is    an

enhancement of Rs. 3,73,960/-, which shall carry interest at the

rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition till realization.

19. As a result, the MAC No. 602 of 2017 is allowed in part. The

award dated 10.03.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above.

Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal's award remain

intact.

Certified Copy as per rules.

Sd/-

Shayna                                          (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
                                                           JUDGE