Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Parmjeet Siingh S/o Sujeet Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Kosanaka Neharu
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2025:CGHC:48011 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 426 of 2018 1 - Smt. Mala Koushik W/o Late Kanhaiya Koushik Aged About 27 Years Cost Suryawanshi, R/o Village Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Parmjeet Siingh S/o Sujeet Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Kosanaka Neharu Nager Bhilai, Thana Supela District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.07/c/5018), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashok Seth S/o T.R.Seth R/o Shop No.55 R.S.S. Market Power House Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.07/c/5018), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office Taha Complex, 2nd Floor Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.07/c/5018), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Uttra Bai W/o Jawahar Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Sister), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jawahar Prasad S/o Late Ramadhar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Jija), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Distt. - Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2015. 2. The averment in in this appeal, in brief, is that the appellants, who are the unfortunate widow and family members of the deceased Kanhaiya Koushik, filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking just compensation for the untimely demise of Kanhaiya Koushik in a fatal road accident. The appellants pleaded that on 10.06.2014 at about 10:45 P.M., the deceased was traveling on his motorcycle from Parsada to Jarhabhatha in connection with his work. While he was passing in front of Swadeshi Food House, near Hightech Bus Stand, Bilaspur, he was hit by a truck bearing registration number CG-07/C/5018, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. As a result of the said accident, the deceased, Kanhaiya Koushik, along with another person Buddhi Singh, sustained grievous injuries and both died on the spot. The appellants claimed that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent and reckless driving of respondent No.1. Accordingly, they held respondent No.1 (driver) and respondent No.2 (owner) of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable for the accident. Respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Ltd., being the insurer of the said vehicle, was also impleaded as a party and made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The accident was reported at Sirgitti Police Station, 3 District Bilaspur, where an FIR was registered, and upon investigation, a criminal charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the truck under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 143/2014, and the same is pending before the competent criminal Court. The appellants also pleaded that the deceased, Kanhaiya Koushik, was around 32 years of age at the time of death and was employed as a Security Guard, earning an annual income of Rs. 40,000/-. Under various heads, the appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 20,50,000/-, and prayed that all three respondents, driver, owner, and insurer, be held jointly and severally liable to pay the same. 3. In response, respondents No.1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending truck, filed a written statement denying the allegations of negligence and claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. They further contended that the claim amount was exaggerated. However, they admitted that the vehicle in question was duly insured on the date of the accident, and therefore, liability, if any, would be upon the insurance company. Respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Ltd., also filed a written statement. It took the plea that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and that the claim amount was excessive and unjustified. However, the insurance company failed to lead any evidence to substantiate its defense or prove breach of any policy condition. No witness was examined on behalf of the insurer. 4. To prove their case, the claimants examined Smt. Mala Koushik (A.W.- 1), widow of the deceased, and Narendra Singh Rajput (A.W.-2), who is 4 an eye-witness to the incident. Both witnesses supported the claimants’ case and affirmed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The claimants reiterated that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of death and was earning Rs. 40,000/- annually as a security guard. It is the grievance of the appellants that although the learned Claims Tribunal accepted the occurrence of the accident and partly allowed the claim petition, the quantum of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the loss suffered by the family. The appellants, being aggrieved by the meagre award, have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,50,000/-, along with interest, on the ground that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the income, future prospects, and other relevant heads of damages in accordance with the settled legal principles. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the statements of the claimant’s witnesses, who had been duly examined and had provided credible testimony in support of the claim petition. Their statements were consistent with the pleadings and were not effectively rebutted during cross-examination. Furthermore, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at merely Rs. 3,300/- per month, when it ought to have been taken as Rs. 40,000/- per annum in view of prevailing minimum wage norms and settled principles of law. Additionally, a future enhancement of 40% on the income should have been applied in light of the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. The findings of Tribunal are further flawed as they run contrary to the documentary evidence available on record and fail to consider the material facts in their correct legal perspective. The assessment made by the Tribunal is thus perverse and warrants appropriate enhancement. Moreover, the interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is unjust and inadequate, as the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is reasonable and in consonance with established judicial norms. In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned award by enhancing the compensation by Rs. 15,91,700/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 526/2014, in the interest of justice and equity. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- can be granted in the death case according to new Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Reliance has been placed upon the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder, reported in 2025 ACJ 244 to buttress his submissions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 8. The New Second Schedule of 163-A of M.V. Act is reproduced below for easy reference:- “THE SECOND SCHEDULE (Section 163A) FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PARTY FATAL ACCIDENTS/INJURY CASES CLAIMS 6 (a) Fatal Accidents: Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees. (b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability: Compensation payable shall be = [Rs. 5,00,000/- W percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)] : Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (c) Accidents resulting in minor injury: A fixed compensation of twenty five thousand rupees shall be payable: On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019 the amount of compensation specified in the clauses (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually. 3. This notification shall come into form on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.” 9. In the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the similar issue and held as follows :- “4. The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment in Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the law which was amended would come into force prospectively, which is a normal rule of interpretation and there being no retrospectively indicated in the amendment itself, the same has to be construed in a harmonious manner giving effect to each and every word. 6. Reliance was placed on the last line of the notification, which indicates that the said amendment would come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette, which is 22nd May, 2018. It was submitted that as the accident had occurred on 11th December, 2004, 7 the benefit of such amendment could not be granted to the respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon various decisions of this Court in Padma Srinivasan Vs. Premier Insurance Company Limited, [(1982) 1 SCC 613]; Shyam Sunder and Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another, [(2001) 8 SCC 24]; Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, [(2003) 2 SCC 577] and Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, [(2009) 2 SCC 589]. 7. It was further contended that the present case is covered by the policy under which the payment is made and the same crystallized on the date the same was entered into and subsequent developments would not alter the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, the contention was that the appellant would not be liable to pay any further than what it was obliged to pay under the Act prior to coming of the amendment on 22 nd May, 2018. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly taken a view that it is merely a procedural amendment which has to be given retrospective effect and it is nothing substantive so as to affect the merits of the issue. 9. Having considered the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. With regard to the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, having gone through the same we find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case. 10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which 8 rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). As 50% of the compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks.” 10. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,58,300/-. As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 41,700/-, thereby rounding off the total compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is the maximum permissible under Section 163-A of the Act. No compelling ground has been shown for further enhancement of the compensation, as the cap of Rs. 5 lakh is absolute under the governing law, irrespective of actual income, dependency, or other relevant factors. The arguments raised by the appellants regarding under-assessment of income and deductions are rendered immaterial in view of this legal ceiling. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs. 41,700/-, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation payable shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. 12. The rest of the conditions of the award, including the rate of interest and mode of disbursement, as directed by the learned Tribunal, shall remain unaltered. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge