Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Saurabh Chandrakar S/o Arun Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o L.I.G
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 514 of 2020 1 - Jaleshwar Singh Sahu S/o Shravan Kumar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Flat No. 103, Sadak 8, Gandhinagar, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Saurabh Chandrakar S/o Arun Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o L.I.G. 312, Padmnabhpur Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.............(Non- Applicant No. 1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok Chandravanshi S/o Holsai Chandravanshi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Senior Hig-5, Sector 1, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.................(Non-Applicant No. 2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh................(Non-Applicant No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 301 of 2020 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Office Tara Complex, Power House Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Jaleshwar Singh Sahu S/o Shrawan Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Flat No. 103, Street No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Saurabh Chandrakar S/o Arun Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Lig 312 Padmnabhpur, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3 - Alok Chandravanshi S/o Holsai Chandravanshi, R/o Senior Hig - 5 Sector - I, Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh MAC No. 514/2020 --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwahal, Advocate MAC No. 301/2020 For Appellant For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 17/07/2025 Order On Board 1. As both the appeals are arising out of the common award, they are
Decision
being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 301/2020 has challenged the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 69,236/- fastened upon it by the learned IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 19.09.2019 in Claim Case No. 407/2016. 3. Appellants-Claimants in MAC No. 514/2020 have sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.10.2015 at around 02:45 P.M., when Applicant along with his son Kishore was returning to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 07 AL 1629 and reached near Sector 9, Bhilai, a car bearing registration no. CG 04 AH 1026 driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, applicant and his son suffered serious injuries and was taken to Sector – 9 Hospital for treatment. On the date of accident, applicant was 3 working with H.L.L. Life Care Mumbai and earning Rs. 26,000/- per month. Filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988) seeking total compensation of Rs. 7,23,007/-. 5. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation less than what for which claimant is entitled for. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under the head of pains and sufferings, grievous injury, loss of income during the laid down period and further awarded compensation on other heads. It is submitted that compensation be suitably enhanced. 6. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by counsel for the appellant and would submit that, amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of case and does not call for any interference. He further submits that, Insurance Company has also filed an appeal bearing MAC No. 301/2020 challenging the liability fastened upon it on the ground that the insured at the time of purchasing the insurance policy has issued cheque against the amount of premium. Further, when the cheque was submitted in the bank, it was dishonored and accordingly, the intimation was also given to the insurer vide letter dated 23.10.2015 (Ex. D/3). He submits that from the record, it is apparent that after getting knowledge that the cheque issued by the insured was dishonored, policy was canceled. He purchased another policy which came into effect from the subsequent date i.e. 04.11.2015 to 03.11.2016. On the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured and 4 therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. 7. Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondents/Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle would submit that it is not in dispute that the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of purchasing the policy has issued a cheque dated 14.10.2015 and the policy was accordingly, issued in his favour with effect from 15.10.2015 til 14.10.2016. The accident was dated 17.10.2015 and therefore, on the date of accident, there was valid and effective policy of the offending vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record justified in fastening liability upon the insurance company. He also contended that the acceptance of the cheque by the insurance company, issuance of policy with effect from 15.10.2015 till 14.10.2016 issued by the insurance company is not in dispute. The Insurance company has not given information/notice of dishonoring of the cheque and consequent thereto, cancellation of the insurance policy issued in favour of the insured, prior to the date of accident and therefore, in the facts of the case, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decisions in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma & Ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balkar Ram & Ors. reported in (2013) SCC OnLine 592 and HDFC Egro General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shesh Narayan Sahu & Anr. reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Chh 304. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 5 9. In the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to consider the appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 301/2020 challenging the liability fastened upon it first. 10. Primary ground raised by the counsel for Appellant/Insurance Comapny is that, cheque issued by the insured against policy issued for the period from 15.10.2015 till 14.10.2016 was dishonored and returned by the company vide cheque return memo (Ex. D/2). Perusal of the document Ex. D/2 would show that it bears date, as 19.10.2015. Notice/information which was given to the insured by the Appellant/Company, by the Divisional Office No. 2/Raipur is dated 23.10.2015. Return of the cheque and information given by the appellant/company to the insured about dishonoring of cheque and cancellation of the insurance policy was subsequent to the date of accident. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula reported in (2000) 3 SCC 195 while considering the issue of cancellation of policy on the ground of dishonoring of cheque issued by the insured against the premium after the date of accident has held thus: - “13. This decision, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the present case also. The subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy in the instant case on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the policy on the date on which the accident took place. If, on the date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party would have a claim against the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in 6 respect of the claim of that party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party.” 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmamma (Supra) while dealing with the similar issue of dishonoring of the cheque and the claim of the insurance company that as the cheque was dishonored and the cancellation of policy is automatic while considering the provision under Section 64 (vb) of the Insurance Act, 1938 has observed thus: - “26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof. 27. Having regard to the above legal position, insofar as the facts of the present case are 7 concerned, the owner of the bus obtained the policy of insurance from the insurer for the period 16-4-2004 to 15-4-2005 for which premium was paid through cheque on 14-4-2004. The accident occurred on 11-5-2004. It was only thereafter that the insurer cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated 13-5-2004 on the ground of dishonour of cheque which was received by the owner of the vehicle on 21-5-2004. The cancellation of policy having been done by the insurer after the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy the award of compensation passed in favour of the claimants. 13. Considering the facts of the case, where indisputedly, the accident is dated 17.10.2015 whereas, the cheque was dishonored and returned through cheque return memo by the concerned bank on 19.10.2015 i.e. after the date of accident and the notice/information given by the insurance company of dishonoring of cheque and cancellation of policy on 23.10.2015 i.e. much after the date of accident. Therefore, the Appellant/Insurance Company is legally bound to indemnify the insured. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in fastening liability upon the Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award of compensation. 14. The appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 301/2020 being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. 15. So far as the ground raised by the appellant/claimant in MAC No. 514/2020 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, the claimant in support of the claim has filed MLC report conducted immediately after the accident at Government Hospital as 8 Ex. P/7. The doctor examining the injured/appellant has mentioned two severe injuries, one on the occipital region of head and gross swelling on left leg. 16. The claimant/appellant have also filed document of his treatment from Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence both documentary and oral, had arrived at a conclusion that the claimant took treatment as inpatient for one day and further, Tribunal has considered that due to the nature of injuries suffered by him, he was not fit to join his duties and could not be able to join for about further 02 months. 17. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal further taken note of the evidence of the claimant that he would not be able to perform his duties for 02 months awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation during the laid down period. The claimant has filed salary-slip as Ex. P/41 wherein, total earnings is shown as Rs. 14,799.12/- and net pay as Rs. 13,380/-. As from the evidence, it is proved that the salary received by him from the employer, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred awarding only Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of income for a period of 02 months, when the claimant proved his income by documentary evidence issued by the employer, he is entitled for loss of income as per the salary-slip comes to Rs. 29,598.24/- (Rs. 14,799 X 2). It is ordered accordingly. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out any error in award of medical bills of Rs. 7236/- and therefore, the said amount of compensation towards the medical expenses is affirmed. 9 19. Considering the nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of Special Diet from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 20. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellant/claimant. Heads Compensation S. No. 1. Loss of income during laid down : Rs. 29,598.24/- period (14,799.12 X 2) 2. Medical Expenses 3. Conveyance 4. Pains and sufferings 5. Special diet Attendant 6. 7. Repair of vehicle Total Compensation : (+) Rs. 7,236/- : (+) Rs. 2,000/- : (+) Rs. 20,000/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : (+) Rs. 5,000/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : Rs. 83,834.24/- 21. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 83,834.24/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 22. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge