United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- 1st Floor Krishna v. 1 - Raghunath Sahu, S/o
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.01 17:47:44 +0530 2025:CGHC:36967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 136 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- 1st Floor Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Raghunath Sahu, S/o. Shri Premlal Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Village- Khola Ward No.8, Bazar Para, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
Legal Reasoning
regard, the decision of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. A.Verlaxmi & Others1 passed in M.A.(C) No.273 of 2010 may be noticed herein, in which in para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, it has been held as under : “11. For better appreciation of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, I deem it apposite to reproduce the same. (1) …………………………… (2) …………………………… (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the applications referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority. 12. A perusal of the aforesaid relevant Rules would show that endorsement in the driving license of the driver is necessary to the effect that 1 2015 ACJ 132 (C.G.) 5 he is authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. 13. It is true that respondent/driver was holding licence to drive heady goods vehicle/tanker from 25.07.1997 and it has been renewed from time to time and the accident had occurred on 09.04.2008, thus, he was driving the heavy goods vehicle for the last more than 10 years. It is not the case of the appellant/insurance company that accident had taken place on account of the fact that there was no endorsement to drive such a vehicle. The endorsement neither increases the efficiency of the driver, nor in its absence, the efficiency of the driver is likely to be reduced in any manner whatsoever. It only certifies additionally that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. For driving such a vehicle, no further expertise or driving is required. This could be said to be a lapse on the part of the driver, but this lapse was not responsible for the cause of the accident. 14. Even without the endorsement as contemplated under sub-rule (3), the driving skill of respondent No.3 had not reduced. By taking the endorsement from the Licensing Authority, the nature of vehicle or the kind of the vehicle which the driver would be driving would not have changed, it would have remained the same. Thus, taking of the endorsement from the Licensing Authority was for some other purpose and not for giving him further certificate for driving the tanker, as he was already holding a valid license for driving it. Precisely this is what has been said in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others 2 , in para 110. It has been held so- “………….To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 6 insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. It has further been held as under :- “Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act. 15. Thus, the crux of the matter would be whether such breach that is to say not having obtained necessary endorsement as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, the accident occurred due to that non-endorsement has been discussed hereinabove. Any driver who has held a driving license to drive a tanker would be entitled to have this endorsement subject fo fulfilling of other conditions as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, but they do not deal with the professional skill of driving. With regard to professional skill of driving, he has already been certified by the Licensing Authority at the time of granting of licence to him. It is not the case of the appellant that his driving license was not obtained properly. 7 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in saddling the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company as there was no fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such appeal has no merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 8. 9. In that view of the matter, the plea that the driver did not have the effective driving licence has been rightly rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Now, it is the case of the claimants that at the time of incident, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the minimum income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8060/- per month i.e. Rs.96,720/- per annum. It is also the case of the claimants that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the other heads also. 10. In view of the above submission made by the claimants, this Court is computing the compensation as below :- Heads Tribunal New Calculation Income as per minimum wages. Deduction Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Per Annum Rs. 8,060 x 12 = Rs. 96,720/- Per Annum 1/4 = Rs.18,000/- Rs. Annum 54,000/- Per 1/4 = Rs. 24,180/- Rs. Annum 72,540/- Per 8 Future prospects Multiplier Funeral expenses 40% of Rs.54000/- is Rs.21,600 and total comes to Rs.75,600/- 40% of Rs.29,016/- is Rs.72,540/- and total comes to RS.1,01,556/- 17 x 75,600 = Rs.12,85,200/- 17 x 1,01,556/- = 17,26,452/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss Consortium of Rs.40,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.13,55,200/- Rs. 19,56,452/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,56,452/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,55,200/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,01,252/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 23.04.2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of appellant/insurance company is dismissed, however, the cross-appeal filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure is 9 allowed to the above extent. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Ashok Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
2 - Ku. Devika Sahu, D/o. Shri Raghunath Sahu, Aged About 9 Years, R/o. Village-Khola Ward No.8, Bazar Para, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Hemesh Sahu, S/o. Raghunath Sahu, Aged About 6 Years, R/o. Village- Khola, Ward No.8, Bazar Para, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Phagani Bai Sahu, W/o. Shri Premlal Sahu, Aged About 53 Years, R/o. Village- Khola, Ward No.8, Bazar Para, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 5 - Premlal Sahu, S/o. Late Manrakhan Sahu, Aged About 58 Years, R/o. Village- Khola, Ward No.8, Bazar Para, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Respondent No.2 & 3 are Minor Through Their Father Respondent No. 1 (Raghunath Sahu) 6 - Vatsa Kumar Meshram, S/o. Radheshyam Meshram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Nayapara, Ward No. 19, Village- Dadhari, Post Office- Dhaneli, Police Station- Gurur, District- Balod (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Smt. Harjindar Kaur Kaberwal, W/o. Shri Surindar Singh Kaberwal, R/o. Surindar Niwas, Santrabadi, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 29/07/2025 1. Questioning the award dated 26.10.2021, passed in Claim Case No.281/2018, the appellant/insurance company has 3 preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act in which the claimants have also filed cross- objection for enhancement of the award of compensation. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence of transport vehicle but he was not having endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 5 would support the impugned award and submit that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced. 4. Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 also supports the impugned award. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Admittedly, the vehicle which was driven by the respondent No.6 was loaded with empty H.P. Gas Cylinders and the driver had driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle / transport vehicle and he did not have the endorsement as 4 required under sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 7. It is not the case of the appellant/ insurance company that the accident had taken place on account of the fact that there was no endorsement to drive such vehicle. In this