Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Sitabai Pawar Wd/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 35 Years R/o
Case Details
-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 512 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through, Division Office- M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Ghadi Chowk, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Appelant, Respondent No. 3)(Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Sitabai Pawar Wd/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Pandharvahi, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1)(Applicant No. 1)(Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suraj Rao Pawar S/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Pandharvahi, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Since Minor, Represented Through Guardian- Mother, Smt. Sitabai Pawar (Respondent No. 2)(Applicant No. 2)(Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Annapurna Pawar D/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 12 Years R/o Village Pandharvahi, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3)(Applicant No. 3)(Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Madhav Rao Pawar S/o Late Banthu Rao Pawar Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Pandharvahi, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4)(Applicant No. 4)(Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Uma Pawar W/o Madhav Rao Pawar Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Pandharvahi, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 5)(Applicant No. 5)(Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shrawan Kumar Sahu S/o Brijlal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Jangalpara Nagri, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) (Respondent No. 1) (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7 - Umesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Mahesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Line Para Nagri, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) (Respondent No. 2) (Owner), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sita Bai Pawar W/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village MAC No. 6 of 2020 -2- Panderwahi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suraj Rao Pawar S/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sita Bai Pawar W/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar, R/o Village Panderwahi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Annapurna Pawar D/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sita Bai Pawar W/o Late Vikas Rao Pawar, R/o Village Panderwahi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Madhav Rao Pawar S/o Late Banthu Rao Pawar Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Panderwahi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Uma Rao Pawar W/o Madhav Rao Pawar Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Panderwahi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Shravan Kumar Sahu S/o Brij Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Jangal Para Nagari, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Umesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Mahesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Line Para Nagari, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Branch Office, M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Ghandi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate in MAC No.512 of 2020 For Respondents/claimants in MAC No.512 of 2020 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For appellants in MAC No.6 of 2020 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For respondent /Insurance Company : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate in MAC No.6 of 2020 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2025 -3- 1) Heard. 2) In MAC No.512 of 2020, the Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.32/2019, dated 14.10.2019, whereby, learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.8,29,420/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Vikas Rao Pawar. 3) MAC No.6 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 4) The facts are as under : On 01.12.2018 at around 4:00 p.m., the deceased Vikas Rao Pawar along with Maneshwar Patel were going on motorcycle to purchase clothes in market of Village Dugli; the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG05/AD/5059 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the said motorcycle, consequently, Vikas Rao Pawar sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital and during course of treatment, he died. 5) The claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased. They pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 40 years and he was a labourer earning Rs.6000/- per month. 6) The driver, owner as well as insurance company filed their reply and denied the contents of the claim application. 7) Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, passed an award. 8) Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as the said vehicle was goods carrying vehicle and driver had licence -4- only to drive Light Motor Vehicle/Non-Transport Category and thus, the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening liability with the insurance company. 9) Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would argue that according to the minimum wages notification issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur prevailing in the month of December, 2018, the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour was Rs.8060/- per month, whereas, the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly notional income of deceased Rs.4500/- per month and thus, the award is on lower side. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 10) Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dhurandhar. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy. 11) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 12) With regard to the contention raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and others, reported in 2025(3) SCC 95, has held that a driver holding a licence for Light Motor Vehicle class with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorization. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 181.1, 182.2 and 183.3 held as under : -5- “181.1 A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2 The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 181.3 The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.” 13) Coming to the facts of the present case. The driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to drive Light Motor Class and there was no endorsement in his licence to drive a transport vehicle. Admittedly, the weight of the offending vehicle was below 7500 kg. and this fact has not been disputed by the insurance company before the learned Tribunal. 14) Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambha Devi (supra), the contention made by Mr. Deshmukh cannot be accepted, accordingly rejected. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 15) A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed notional income of the deceased Rs.4500/- only and admittedly, the deceased was a labourer. 16) According to the Notification issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur, the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour in the month of December, 2018 was Rs.8060/- and thus, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. 17) The award would further reveal that the learned Tribunal has not granted -6- compensation for loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. 18) Thus, the compensation is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Income Rs. 4500 x12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 8060 x 12 = Rs. 96720/- Future Prospect 54000/100 x 25 = 13500/- 96720/100 x 25 = 24180/- Deduction 54000 + 13500 = 67500/- (-) 1/4 = 16875 Total -50625/- 96720 + 24180 = 120900/- (-) ¼ (30,225) Total – 90,675/- Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. 7,59,420/- (x)15 =Rs.13,60,125/- Love affection and Rs.15,000/- Not applicable Loss of Estate Not awarded Rs.16500/- Funeral expenses Loss Consortium appellant No.1/wife Rs.15000/- Rs.15000/- Rs.40000/- of to Rs.40000/- Not awarded Rs. 88,000/- Parental consortium to appellants No.2 & 3 Filial consortium to appellant No.4 Not awarded Rs.88,000/- -7- & 5 9. Total Rs.8,29,420/- Rs. 16,07,625/- 19) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,29,420/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,07,625/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,29,420/-, the appellant/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,78,205/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. 20) Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is hereby partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha