High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:30 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1016 of 2017 2025:CGHC:35594 NAFR The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office (Then, Now Divisional Office), Rahul Complex, 3rd Floor, Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh Chhattisagrh versus ... Appellant 1 - Smt. Kamla Bai Wd/o Late Shiv Prasad Ram, Aged About 45 Years, occupation House wife R/o Dhimrapur Nawapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisagrh 2 - Ku. Reena, D/o Late Shiv Prasad, Aged About 22 Years R/o Dhimrapur Nawapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisagrh 3 - Rikesh Kumar, S/o Late Shiv Prasad, Aged About 18 Years R/o Dhimrapur Nawapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisagrh 4 - Jogi Ram, S/o Late Majhola, Aged About 72 Years R/o Dhimrapur Nawapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisagrh 5 - Gagi Bai, W/o Jogi Ram, Aged About 62 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Dhimrapur Nawapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Munna Gupta, S/o Shri Jawahir Gupta, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Ward No. 5, Kirodimal Nagar, P. S. Kotra Road, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - M/s. Jindal Steel Pvt. Ltd. , Post Box No. N 16, Kharsiya Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6 : None For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 23.07.2025 Judgment on Board 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 27.04.2017, passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.10/2015, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein jointly and severally. 2. The brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 14.08.2014, Shiv Prasad (since deceased) was returning to his house after duty at Jindal Steel and Power Limited where he was working as Senior Crane Operator on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-13/M/7984. When he reached near Plate Mill, a Mixture Machine vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13/L/2218 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed the motorcycle, due to which, he fell down. He was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Shiv Kumar, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹29,56,128/- under various heads. 3 4. Non-applicant No. 1 has submitted his written statement, in which he denied all the allegations made in the application filed by the claimants. It was denied that the deceased had a monthly income of ₹19,487/- and claimed that the deceased himself was at fault in the accident. It was pleaded that the age of the deceased was 48 years and asserted that the claim of ₹29,56,128/- was incorrect. 5. Non-applicant No. 2 also denied all the allegations made by the applicants in his reply. It has been pleaded that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance Company, as such the liability to pay the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 6. The appellant/non-applicant No. 3 has specifically denied the age and monthly income of the deceased and also denied that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance Company. It was pleaded that the claimants have erroneous claimed ₹29,56,128/- as compensation looking to the fact that the deceased Shiv Prasad had been in permanent employment on the pay scale of ₹19,487/-. 7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹28,82,912/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened 4 the liability upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation, which needs to be reduced suitably. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate, as such the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal should be suitably reduced. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the owner/respondent No. 7 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the fact that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not having any permit and fitness certificate. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after duly appreciating the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned award, which does not warrant any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to establish the fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having any 5 valid permit and fitness as they have not examined anyone of the Insurance Company to prove the said fact. It further transpires from the impugned award that Crime No. 216/14 under Section 304-A of the IPC had been registered against non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle at Kotra Road Police Station, wherein a detailed charge sheet was filed, charging him as an accused. In addition, it has been proved that on the date of the incident, i.e., 14.08.2014, driver of offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, which resulted in the fatal injuries and death of the deceased Shiv Prasad. It also transpires that the appellant/Insurance Company had issued Insurance Policy No.193400/31/2015/63 for the offending vehicle, which was valid from 01.04.2014 to midnight of 31.03.2015. 12. Further, this Court is of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in reckoning the monthly income of deceased as ₹26,278/- while working as Senior Crane Operator at Jindal Steel and Power Limited, Raigarh. 13. In light of the discussions and findings made hereinabove, it is evident that the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to substantiate its grounds of challenge to the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company neither produced any witness nor brought on record any cogent material to establish that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit or fitness certificate on the date of the accident. Mere pleadings, 6 unsubstantiated by evidence, cannot be the basis to deny just compensation to the claimants. 14. It is further undisputed that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company under Policy No. 193400/31/2015/63, valid from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, covering the date of the accident, i.e., 14.08.2014. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss arising out of the accident in terms of the contract of insurance. 15. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the award of compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal, based on sound legal principles and the evidence available on record, is just and reasonable. The appellant has not been able to point out any perversity or error of law in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company stands dismissed as devoid of merit. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge