Insurer must prove plea of vehicle implantation with evidence to discharge liability in motor accident claims.

The appeals arise from a motor accident involving a car (No. CG-10-P-3090) that resulted in the death of Mahaveer Netam

The legal heirs (widow and two minor daughters) filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

On 22.11.2018, the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, awarded Rs. 8,76,400/- with 6% interest to the claimants, holding the Insurance Company liable

The Insurance Company appealed (MAC No. 449 of 2019), contending the vehicle was "wrongly implanted" to secure compensation

The claimants filed a cross-appeal (MAC No. 295 of 2019) seeking enhancement, arguing the Tribunal undervalued the deceased's monthly income and failed to award parental consortium to the minor children

1. Whether the vehicle in question was falsely implicated/implanted in the accident to fasten liability on the Insurance Company

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- instead of the rates prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification

3. Whether the minor children of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of "loss of consortium"

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards

It relied on the principles for calculating just compensation established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 regarding multipliers and deductions

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 regarding future prospects and conventional heads

The Court applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 to grant parental consortium to the minor children

It also utilized the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner for objective income assessment

Regarding the Insurance Company's plea of "implantation," the Court observed that although the insurer raised this defense in its written statement, it failed to lead any evidence to support the allegation

Since the Tribunal’s finding of the vehicle's involvement was based on a full-fledged trial, the High Court refused to interfere with the liability

On the issue of quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 4,500/- monthly income to be inadequate; it revised this to Rs. 6,289/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Notification

The Court then recalculated the compensation by adding 40% for future prospects, applying a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, and using a multiplier of 16

Additionally, the Court noted the omission of parental consortium and awarded Rs. 40,000/- each to the two minor daughters

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 8,76,400/- to Rs. 12,76,992/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 4,00,592/-

The Court directed the respondent/insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within 30 days, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application

All other conditions of the original award remained intact