The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- The Divisional Manager, Address G.E. Road Parmanand Bhawan v. 1 - Gaindlal S/o Lakhan Lal Deshmukh
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:41104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 71 of 2025 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- The Divisional Manager, Address G.E. Road Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg ( C.G.). Policy No. 191401/31/2023/270 ) Valid From 19.01.2023 To 18.01.2024 ) Insurer Of Truck Tanker No. Cg- 10 Bd- 2688 ) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Gaindlal S/o Lakhan Lal Deshmukh ( Wrongly Mentioned As Dekhmukh ) 2 - Smt Hemlata @ Janu Bai W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 34 Years 3 - Smt. Kesri Bai W/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 32 Years 4 - Smt. Motim Bai W/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 29 Years Resp.No. 1 to 4 are R/o Ward No. 10, Bhathapara, Sakraud, Post- Rahud, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod ( C.G. ) At Present Resident Of Jevra Sirsa, Ward No.9, P.S.- Pulgaon District- Durg ( C.G.). 5 - Raj Kumar Angare S/o Khorbahra Ram Angare R/o Near Vidyalaya Didanga, P.S.- Ranitarai District- Durg ( C.G.). ( Driver Of Truck Tanker No. Cg- 10 Bd- 2688 ) 6 - Dimra Sao S/o Peela Babu Company, C/o Suyas Gupta C/o Rakesh Gupta, Resident Of Pushparaj School, Vaishali Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ) ( Owner Of Truck Tanker No. Cg- 10 Bd- 2688) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.22 11:03:59 +0530 -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) :
Legal Reasoning
has been lodged against the driver of truck. It appears prima facie that death of deceased Mana Bai has occurred due to her careless walking on the road, therefore, deceased should also be held contributory -4- negligent in the accident. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending truck was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Mana Bai Deshmukh suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, non- applicants were held liable to pay amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.9000/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,40,100/- . 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant No.1 overlooking the evidence of AW1/husband of deceased. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4 considering the claimants No. 2 to 4, married daughters, to be dependent upon deceased, which is erroneous. He submits that it is only applicant No.1 who is dependent on deceased being her husband, therefore appropriate multiplier would be ½ instead of ¼. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants opposes submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that after accident report was lodged mentioning that, deceased was dashed by offending truck from her back. After investigation, police also filed final report/charge sheet against non-applicant No.1 driver of -5- truck, hence, negligence on the part of driver of truck in causing accident is proved. He next contended that claimants No. 2 to 4 being daughters were entitled for compensation and therefore, Claims Tribunal justified in awarding compensation treating claimants No. 2 to 4 also dependents upon deceased. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 9. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle-truck based on deposition of AW1 is concerned, AW- 1/ husband of deceased in his evidence in chief has clearly stated that her wife was dashed by the offending truck -tanker bearing No. CG 10- BD-2688 from her back, due to which she suffered injuries over her person and during course of treatment at Shankaracharya Hospital, she died on 04.11.2023. He also contended that accident was reported to concerned police station. Perusal of FIR would show that accident of 28.10.2023 was reported to concerned police station based upon which FIR was registered on 31.10.2023 i.e. prior to date of death of deceased FIR was registered, initially for offence under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. Subsequently, offence under Section 304-A IPC was also added. After completion of investigation, police submitted final report/charge sheet vide Ex.P-1 mentioning that when deceased was coming back to her house on her foot offending truck dashed her from behind. -6- 10. AW1 husband of deceased was not an eyewitness to the accident as in his evidence he has not made such statement before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, one line of entire evidence as referred by learned counsel for appellant of his cross-examination that she died due to falling on the ground cannot be appreciated in isolation to be the cause of death of deceased, more so, when medical document available on record of the date of accident i.e. 28.10.2023 clearly mentions that it’s a case of road traffic accident (RTA). She might have fallen due to dash suffered by her from offending vehicle. 11. For the foregoing discussions, first submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that deceased succumbed to self falling injuries is not acceptable, it is accordingly repelled. 12. So far as second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant of application of deduction of ¼ to be erroneous is concerned, evidence of AW1/ husband of deceased and father of claimants No. 2 to 4 would show that he clearly stated that claimants No. 2 to 4 are married daughters and they are residing along with their husbands. In view of specific evidence available on record of AW1 it is a case that claimant No. 2 to 4 being married daughter are residing at their matrimonial house and were dependent upon their husband and therefore they cannot be treated to be dependent upon deceased mother. 13. Application of deduction as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 is to be applied considering number of dependents upon the deceased. The word used is “dependent” and -7- therefore for applying appropriate deduction it is to be looked into whether claimants were dependent upon the deceased or not. 14. Admittedly, deceased was married lady and claimant No.1 is husband and, therefore, appropriate deduction according to decision in case of Sarla Verma (supra) would be 1/3 and not ¼ and, therefore, it is ordered that appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased in the facts of case would be 1/3. It is ordered accordingly. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency : Rs. 8,71,200 9000 x 12 = 108000 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (108000 x 10% =10800) 108000 + 10800 =1,18,800 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses ( 1,18,800 x 1/3 =39600) 1,18,800- 39600 = 79200 (D) Multiplier of 11 79200 x 11 = 8,71,200 2. Loss of Consortium to claimants No. 1 to 4 of Rs.40,000/- each : (+) Rs. 1,60,000 ( 40000 x 4 = 1,60,000/-) Total compensation : Rs. 10,31,200 16. Now the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.10,31,200/- instead of Rs.11,40,100/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. -8- 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that interest awarded by learned Claims Tribunal of 9% is on higher side. 18. In the facts of case and looking to the date of accident, I am not inclined to accept submission of learned counsel for appellant and to interfere on the award of interest on the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Said submission of learned counsel for the appellant is accordingly repelled. 19. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Arguments
Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 14/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant insurance company challenging the award dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.550 of 2023. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 28/10/2023 at about 5.00 pm, Smt. Mana Bai Deshmukh (wife of applicant No.1) was coming slowly and carefully on her left side on foot to her house after buying household goods from the market of her village Sakraud. As soon as she reached in front of Bhatapara pond, non-applicant No. 1 driving vehicle truck -tanker no. CG-10-BD-2688 at high speed and in a careless manner, dashed Mana Bai Deshmukh from behind who was walking on the roadside, due to which Mana Bai suffered serious injuries on her hands, legs, head, chest and various parts of her body and she died during treatment on 04-11-2023. It was pleaded that deceased was a healthy woman of 54 years at the time of the accident. Applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Deceased -3- was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as labourer and doing agriculture work. As a result of death of deceased Mana Bai Deshmukh in the said accident, claimants sought for total compensation of Rs.22,74,000 / - from non-applicants under various heads. 3. Non-applicant No. 1 by filing his written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No. 1 in the said accident. Non- applicant No. 1 was holding driving license at the time of accident and vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3 on the date of accident and no condition of insurance has been violated, hence, responsibility of paying compensation if any would be upon non-applicant No. 3 insurance company. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement resisted the claim and pleaded inter alia that applicants should prove the profession of the deceased, her employment and her monthly income through admissible documents and evidence. In absence of proof of age, occupation and income of the deceased, amount of compensation sought is not justified. Accident was reported in the police station three days after the death of Mana Bai. Information about the accident is not given by any party to the concerned police station within the stipulated time. Delay in lodging report to police station gives rise to suspicion regarding the accident. Hiding the actual facts of incident, a false report
Decision
20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen