High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.23 14:31:24 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 756 of 2015 Judgment Reserved on 22.08.2025 Judgment Pronounced on 23.09.2025 NAFR 1 - Savit Ram Dhanuhar S/o Shukrawar Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 21 years, (Vehicle Driver – Tractor No.CG-10-D-6721 and 6722), 2 - Sukwar Singh Dhanuhar, S/o Ramhai Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 55 years, (Vehicle owner – Tractor No.CG-10-D-6721 & 6722), Both are R/o Village Daihanpara, Karra. Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, versus --- Appellants 1 - Kanhaiya Singh Dhanuhar, S/o Pawan Singh Dhanuhar, Caste – Dhanuhar, aged about 45 years, 2 - Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Kanhaiya Singh, Caste – Dhanuhar, aged about 43 years, Both are R/o Village Farhada Daihanpara, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8 I.P. Rico, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaypur, Rajasthan 302022, --- Respondents MAC No. 943 of 2015 1 - Kanhaiya Singh Dhanuhar S/o Pavan Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 45 years,
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Kanhaiya Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 43 years, All are R/o Village Farhada (Daihan Para), P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ---Appellants Versus 1 - Savit Ram Dhanuhar, S/o Shukwar Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 21 years, (Driver of Tractor bearing No.CG-10-D-6721 and 6722), 2 - Shukwar Singh Dhanuhar, S/o Ramhai Singh Dhanuhar, aged about 55 years, (Owner of Tractor bearing No.CG-10-D-6721 & 6722) R/o Daihan Para Karra, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2 3 - Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Riico Industrial Ara, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan 302022 India, MAC No.756 of 2015 --- Respondents For Appellants : Shri Gautam Khetrapal with Ms. Pranouti Das, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 For Respondent 3 : Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate. : Shri Sourabh Sharma along with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. MAC No.943 of 2015 For Appellants/Claimants For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate. : Shri Gautam Khetrapal with Ms. Pranouti Das, Advocate For Respondent 3 : Shri Sourabh Sharma along with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, C.A.V. Judgment 1. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of common award dated
Decision
07.04.2015, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per the averments of the claim petition, on 23.05.2013, the deceased Dhan Singh, who was sitting on Tractor – Trolley No.CG-10-D-6721 and 6722 (for short, the ‘offending vehicle’) along with other labourers, was returning to village Farhada Daihan Para after unloading the goods and before 100 meters at village Emarsahi Nahar Road, the Non-applicant No.1 Savit Ram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’ of the offending vehicle) was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased sitting on trailer/trolley fell down and thrown away, due to which, he received grievous injuries and succumbed to such injuries. 3. Owing to death of Dhan Singh, a claim petition was filed by appellants/parents of deceased (hereinafter ‘the claimants’) seeking a total compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on various heads, stating therein that the deceased, aged 17 years, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the Non-applicants No.1 & 2 (hereinafter 3 referred as ‘the driver and owner of the offending vehicle’) by filing written statement stating therein that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No.3 (hereinafter referred as ‘the insurance company’) and that there was no breach of any violation, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation, while insurance company pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose, but the same was being plied on the date of accident as commercial vehicle, the trolley was not insured and that, on the date of accident, the driver - Savit Ram was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. On these premises, it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence and material available on record, held the Driver – Savit Ram liable for rash and negligent driving; due to which, the deceased, who was sitting on the vehicle, has died on account of grievous injuries; and on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was found to be driving in violation of breach of policy conditions; assessed and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation, while fastening liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle before the Claims Tribunal, as the insurance company could prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of insurance policy. Hence, these appeals by the driver and owner for setting aside the impugned award as well as by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for driver-owner would submit that at the time of accident, the deceased boy fell down and died when he was sitting in the tractor trolley. He would further submit that the driver was having driving licence, as is evident from Ex.D-1 & D-2. Further, 4 though there is no evidence available on record regarding the verification of the driving license but, in this regard, NAW3 (1) – Umesh Tripathi, AG-III, RTO, Bilaspur has been examined who has stated that document regarding the said driving license has been missing/destroyed and thus, could not proved that the driving license was fake. He would further submit that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company which is evident from the insurance policy vide Ex.D-3 showing driver and one extra person under the risk coverage, for which, an additional premium has also been charged by the insurance company for covering the risk of 1 + 1 including the driver. He would further submit that the trolley of the tractor cannot move without the tractor as there is no such equipment attached to the trolley to run the trolley alone. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation. 7. On the contrary, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the deceased was travelling in the tractor trolley and the said trolley was not insured with the insurance company. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the driving license of the driver was fake and the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He would further submit that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy of the Tractor. He would further contend that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose only but on the date of accident, the said vehicle was being used for non-agricultural purpose. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company to pay the compensation. Lastly, he would submit that the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference. 8. Shri Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the claimants (MAC No.943/2025) 5 would submit that the deceased was the worker in the offending vehicle and at the time of accident, he was aged about 17 years young boy, however, the learned Claims Tribunal, ignoring the provisions of minimum wages, has assessed the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- on it own, which is on lower side. He would further submit that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the loss of future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side and on these premises, he would pray that compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 10. Before proceeding further it needs to be discussed with respect to registration numbers of the offending vehicle. Firstly, in claim petition the claimants mentioned in their claim petition that tractor bearing registration number CG-10-D-6721 and trolley number CG-10-D-6722 whereas on the other hand, the insurance company in its written statement has shown the tractor number 6722 and trolley number 6721. Similarly, NAW - 1 owner has brought on record the copy of registration certificate which are exhibited as D4 & D5. A perusal of Ex.D4 would show the registration number of trolley as CG-10-D-6721 whereas the tractor number is CG-10-D-6722. When the said documents are considered, it is clear that the tractor number is CG-10- D-6722 and trolley number is CG-10-D-6721 and that the claimants had inadvertently mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the insurance company has pleaded that the tractor was insured but trolley was not insured. 11. There is no dispute regarding the accident, but it is to be seen whether on 6 the date of accident, the deceased was sitting on the trolley or tractor. A.W.1 Kanhaiya Singh has stated that his son (deceased Dhan Singh) was sitting in the trolley bearing registration No.CG-10-D-6722 and due to rash and negligent driving by the driver Savit Ram, firstly the deceased was thrown away and fell down and thus has died on account of grievous injuries. Eye- witness A.W.2 Ashok Kumar has also stated about the deceased being sitting in the trolley No.6722, therefore, it is clear from their evidence that deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle. Ex.D-3 is insurance policy brought on record by the owner would show that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 1 + 1 including driver and in addition thereto, it would also show that an amount of Rs.50/- has also been obtained by the insurance company as premium for one extra employee. So much so, the insurance policy (Ex.D.3) would show that the said tractor was also insured. In this way, it is proved by N.A.W.1 Shukwar Singh (owner) that on the date of accident, the tractor was insured and the seating capacity was 1 + 1 and that the insurer also collected premium of Rs.50/- for covering the risk of one extra employee. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of the accident, the tractor and trolley were attached together and were in a moving position. On perusal of the definition of word ‘tractor’ shows that the tractor itself is not able to carry any load without the equipments. Therefore, any equipment attached to the tractor is a part of the tractor. Thus, the trailer/trolley, which is attached with the tractor is a part of the tractor. 13. In so far as the driving license of the non-applicant No.1 to be fake is concerned, NAW3(1) – Umesh Tripathi, Assistant Grade – III, RTO, Bilaspur has been examined on behalf of the insurance company. He has stated on one hand that he has come with original license register for the year 2003, 7 serial numbered as 22436/2003 and on the other hand he has stated that original register was destroyed. This witness in cross-examination has further admitted that the eligibility to drive a light motor vehicle is mentioned in Ex.D-1 and he was not aware of the tractor being fallen under which category. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he further admitted that the page at the back of Ex.D-2 was worn out and missing from the register and further admitted that the license page of Ex.D1 is also missing from the register. Therefore, he could not state whether the said driving license was issued from his office or not as he was not posted in the year 2003. A perusal of his evidence would show that he was not in a position to state as to whether those particulars were verified or not, as such, it is difficult to hold that on the date of accident, the driver was not having valid driving license and it is accordingly held that the insurance company has miserably failed to show that on the date of accident, the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving license. 14. The next contention of the insurance company that the tractor, insured for agricultural purpose and on the date of accident, it was returning empty and not used for agricultural purpose and in that event, the accident occurred. To deal with this contention, evidence of NAW2 – Sukrawar Singh, owner of the offending vehicle is crucial wherein he has specifically stated that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was carrying paddy straw and it was returning empty after unloading the same and thereby it was being used for agricultural purpose which was not refuted by the insurance company by leading cogent and clinching evidence. This statement is also corroborated by the statement of AW-2 Ashok Kumar. In this way, it can be inferred from perusal of the evidence and material available on record that there was no breach of policy condition and the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the insurance policy is liable to be rejected. 8 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company is erroneous finding and is accordingly, set aside. Instead, this Court holds that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is exonerated on the ground that they could successfully prove that the offending vehicle is not involved in any breach of policy condition. Therefore, the Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation as it could not prove any breach of policy condition. 16. Now, as regards the appeal (MAC No.943/2015) for enhancement, it was stated by the claimants in their claim petition that the deceased – Dhan Singh, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a labour, but no documentary evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. The accident occurred in the year 2013 and as per provisions of Minimum Wages for the period between 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 and looking to the nature of work of the deceased, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,943/- i.e. Rs.59,316/- per annum. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 17 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40% and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side. 17. Taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 9 Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- Sl.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,943/- per month Rs.59,316/- per annum 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.23,726/- Rs.59,316/- Rs.83,042/- + Rs.23,726/-= 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.41,521/- Rs.83,042 - Rs.41,521 = Rs.41,521/- Multiplier of 18 to be applied Rs.41,521 x 18 = Rs.7,47,378/- Towards Conventional Heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium) Rs.1,10,000/- Total Compensation Rs.8,57,378/- 18. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,67,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.8,57,378/-, the appellants/claimants (MAC No.943/2015) are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.5,90,378/-, which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the ratio of disbursement and the terms and conditions made by the Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In the result, MAC No. 756/2015 filed by the owner-driver is allowed and the MAC No.943/2015 is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash