Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 01, 4th Floor, Maruti v. 1 - Yamini Patel Wd/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o
Case Details
1 ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.23 13:08:49 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:40750 NAFR MAC No. 748 of 2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 01, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Sky Maruti Dealership, Near R.K Mall, G.E. Road, City And District Raipur (C.G) (Insurer) --- Appellant/Applicant versus 1 - Yamini Patel Wd/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Presently Situated At Village Baloda, P.S. Gidhauri, Tundra, District Baodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Abhay Kumar Patel S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Mother Yamini Patel (Respondent No. 1) R/o Village Daubandhan, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Presently Situated At Village Baloda, P.S. Gidhauri, Tundra, District Baodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant) 3 - Shaurya Patel S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Mother Yamini Patel (Respondent No. 1) R/o Village Daubandhan, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Presently Situated At Village Baloda, P.S. Gidhauri, Tundra, District Baodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant) 4 - Asharam S/o Pilaram Patel Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Presently Situated At Village Baloda, P.S. Gidhauri, Tundra, District Baodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 5 - Phir Bai Patel W/o Asharam Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Presently Situated At Village Baloda, P.S. Gidhauri, Tundra, District Baodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Piluram Sahu S/o Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Pawani, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Driver) 7 - Kartikeshwar Verma S/o Late Sammelal Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Tundri, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Owner) --- Respondents/Non-applicants MAC No. 266 of 2025 1 - Yamini Patel W/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, Police Station And Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhay Kumar Patel (Minor) S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel Aged About 5
Legal Reasoning
Years Represented Through Mother Smt. Yamini Patel. R/o Village Daubandhan, Police Station And Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Saurya Patel (Minor) S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Patel, Aged About 03 Months, Represented Through Mother Smt. Yamini Patel. R/o Village Daubandhan, Police Station And Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Asaram S/o Late Pilaram Patel Prasad Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, Police Station And Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- 3 Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Fir Bai Patel W/o Asharam Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Daubandhan, Police Station And Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Village Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants/Applicants Versus 1 - Pilluram Sahu S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Pavani, Police Station And Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle C.G. 13 A.A. 9207) 2 - Kartikeshwar Verma S/o Late Sammelal Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tundri, Police Station And Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle C.G. 13 A.A. 9207) 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Address- Branch Office- Plot No. 01, 4th Floor Maruti Heights Behind R.K. Mall Gent Stern, Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle C.G. 13 A.A. 9207) --- Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellant in MAC No. : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate 748/2025 For Respondents no. 1 to 5 in MAC No. 748/2025 For Respondent no. 6 & 7 For Appellant in MAC No. 266/2025 For Respondent no. 1&2 For Respondent no. 3 in MAC No. 266/2025 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate : None, though served : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate : None, though served : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/08/2025 4 1. As the above appeals are arising out of same award, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. MAC No. 748 of 2025 is filed by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2024, passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal) in M.A.C.T. No. 117/2023 on the ground of fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the impugned award and deciding the issue of breach of policy condition in negative and further that amount of compensation awarded in the facts of case to be on higher side, as also the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is on a higher side. 3. MAC No. 266 of 2025 is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal by impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all claimants and has not awarded compensation towards loss of estate. 4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of these appeals are that the claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein that on 25.08.2023 Narsingh Prasad Patel along with his elder brother Hariram Patel was returning to their village Gidhori. On the way when they reached village Parsapali (Baloda), one tractor bearing registration no. CG 13 AA 9207 driven by non-applicant no. 1 rashly and negligently dashed Narsing Prasad Patel and caused the accident. In the accident Narsingh Prasad received grievous injuries and his elder brother Hariram Patel also suffered injuries on his person. Both of them were taken to hospital at Kasdol and after examination Narsingh Prasad Patel was declared brought dead. But after giving primary treatment to Hariram Patel he was discharged. The accident was reported in the concerned 5 Police Station bearing crime no. 122/2023 for the offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Claimants who are widow, children and parents of deceased- Narsingh Prasad Patel, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 72,00,000 /- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was an educated person. He was working as a driver of ambulance and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that after death of Narsingh Prasad Patel, his family/claimants are facing financial crisis. 6. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending tractor filed their reply to claim application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was possessed with effective and valid driving license. Offending tractor was insured with non-applicant no. 3/Insurance company, thus, if there will be any liability, it would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 7. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in claim application, it was further pleaded that from the primary enquiry, it reveals that deceased Narshing Prasad Patel was travelling on offending tractor’s engine and met with an accident while travelling on engine, as such there was breach of policy condition and, therefore, Insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation. It was also pleaded that non-applicant no. 1 was not possessing any valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and offending tractor was plied in breach of policy conditions. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Narendra Prasad Patel died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending tractor being driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 24,17,710/- as total compensation 6 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the documentary evidence submitted by claimants, in support of claim application as Ex. A-04 and Ex. A-05 which are merg intimation, Ex. A-06 is notice and Ex. A-07 is Naksha Panchnama, wherein it is mentioned that deceased met with an accident while travelling on the tractor. He contended that available documents are submitted by claimants and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to turn around and make a new case that deceased and his brother Hariram Patel was on their foot at the time of accident. He also submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum which is on higher side. He submits that the rate of interest be awarded according to the prevailing rate of interest in nationalized bank. 10. It is lastly contended that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of future prospect also and, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest on the compensation computed under the head of future prospect, as the compensation which the claimant is going to receive for loss to be suffered in future and in support of his contention he places reliance upon decision of High Court of Guahati in case of Abdul Awal @ Auwal And 03 others Vs. M/s United Insurance Co. Ltd And 02 Ors in MAC App 989 of 2018, decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. Vs. Jatinder Singh and Ors. in FAO No. 2268 of 2000 (O&M) and FAO No. 1144 of 2001(O&M) and also decision of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in case of National Insuance Company Limited Vs. Mst. Aisha Bano & Ors. In Mac App No. 33 of 2022, CM No. 6083 of 2022, CM No. 3307 of 2023. At this stage, counsel for the applicant also submits that the delay in lodging of FIR would be fatal and in such cases, facts pleaded in the claim application, evidence requires careful analysis and places reliance upon the decision of 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anil and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others reported in 2018 ACJ 729. 11. Counsel for the claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that document which is referred by insurance company is not authored by injured. In FIR which is registered by the Police there is specific mention of the manner in which accident occurred and in that document Ex. P-02 there is specific mention that when the injured and his brother while going to board the vehicle on their foot, they were dashed by the offending tractor. FIR was lodged by injured Hariram Patel, brother of the deceased. 12. He next contended that after investigation, Police filed the charge- sheet mentioning same facts with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred, as mentioned in FIR. Copy of the final report is filed as Ex. A-01. In the pleadings also, claimants specifically pleaded as to the manner in which accident took place while the deceased and injured were on foot on road. The witness examined have also made similar statement. He contended that though the documents referred by counsel for the appellant, Ex. A-04, Ex.A-05, Ex.A-06 and Ex.A-07, are part of the case diary, however, in absence of examination of the person author of the document before learned Claims Tribunal as contents of the document will not be accepted in evidence. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeshwari reported in 2021 (18) SCC 596 . 13. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording finding that there was no breach of policy conditions. The finding is based upon appreciation of evidence available on record. He submits that claimant has filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement in compensation amount on the grounds mentioned therein. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants and further not awarded compensation under the head of loss of estate. 8 14. The ground raised in the appeal filed by the claimant as also submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant is opposed by the respondent no. 3/insurance company therein and would submit that if for any reason the Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for the amount of compensation it cannot be said to be on lower side. However he pointed out learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to widow of Rs. 50,000/- and the loss of love and affection for children of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- to the parents which is on higher side. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 16. So far as the submission of counsel for appellant Insurance Company with regard to the manner in which accident occurred as mentioned in Ex. A-04, Ex. A-05 and Ex. A-06 is concerned, though in one document Ex. A-04 there is mention of the name of injured witness Hariram Patel however, the police officials who recorded the said document was not examined by appellant-insurance company before learned Claims Tribunal to prove the fact that it was based on the information supplied by the injured person i.e. Hariram Patel. As the documents prepared by the Police is not proved in accordance with law, by examining the person who wrote those document, merely availability of document on record and marking it as exhibits would not be sufficient to read them in evidence without there being any corroborating piece of evidence. 17. Further, Hariram Patel clearly mentioned that tractor dashed him and his brother while they were on road on foot going to board the vehicle in the night. After investigation, Police filed charge sheet, final report mentioning the same facts with regard to accident as mentioned in the FIR. The claimants in their claim application have also narrated same facts and stated before the Claims Tribunal in the evidence accordingly. 9 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering admissibility of documents of police case has held thus: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.” 19. From the evidence available on record documentary and oral and as discussed above that appellant- insurance company has not called Investigating Officer or other Police officials who recorded the proceedings which is forming part of the case diary as witness, therefore, the submission of counsel for appellant that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering that deceased at the time of accident was travelling on the tractor is not sustainable and is repelled. 20. The decision which is relied upon by counsel for the appellant in case of Anil(supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, deceased was owner of the tractor, the court noted some disturbing facts like no postmortem was conducted of the dead body so as to arrive at the conclusion as to the cause of death and the report was not immediately lodged even though deceased was brother of the owner of the tractor. In the case at hand the deceased as also complainant Hariram Patel suffered motor accidental injuries which is evident from records and marked as exhibit. 10 21. In case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. Reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR have observed as under:- “17.It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot except a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.” 22. So far as other submission raised by counsel for appellant with regard to aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged only after 24 days of the accident and the fact that attendant had suffered motor accidental injuries and, therefore, it cannot be said that FIR was lodged with inordinate delay with ulterior motive and, therefore, the said submission of counsel for appellant that there is delay in lodging of FIR is also not sustainable. Accordingly it is repealed. 23. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest of compensation towards future prospect to be erroneous in the opinion of this Court is not acceptable. 24. Admittedly the claimants have lost their bread winner. The award of compensation towards future prospect was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In case of Oriental Insurance Company limited Vs. Niru @ Niharika and Others reported in 2025 INSC 822, Hon’ble Supreme Court have 11 declined to accept the submission as raised by the Insurance Company of awarding interest on future prospect and held as under:- “9. A very relevant issue agitated by the Insurance Company is the illegality in awarding interest for future prospects, which in any event is an amount received in advance, normally inuring to the benefit of the claimants only in future. This is the only contention taken in the connected appeal bearing SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024. We find absolutely no reason to accept this argument. the multiplier applied looking at the life span of the deceased and the claimants is 13. Before the Tribunal itself, the case was pending for 12 years and the only amount received by the claimants was Rs.50,000/-. Hence though amounts are awarded for future prospects taking the multiplier of 13; in effect, the money is received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted. Similar is the case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 where the accident occurred in 2018, the multiplier applied is 17 and we are seven years from the date of accident. 10. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping the Insurance Company from settling the claim on a computation, on receipt of intimation of the accident, especially since the determination of compensation for loss of dependency, on death being occasioned in a motor vehicle accident, can be determined as evident from the judicial precedents; at least provisionally. 11.In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If 12 the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made. Hence, we reject the contention and direct that the entire award amounts would be paid with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim till the date of disbursement, deducting only Rs.50,000/- granted as interim compensation awarded by the High Court; deduction to be made for the amounts already paid.” 25. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any force in the submission of counsel for appellant of awarding interest on future prospect also, to be erroneous and accordingly, the said submission is also repelled. 26. So far as the ground raised by counsel for claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation of appellant on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, award of consortium was considered by Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and it was held that widow/wife shall be awarded loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/-. It was further categorized and clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and explained the types of consortium as loss of spousal consortium to wife/husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of Rs. 40,000/- to each. 27. In the case, at hand, though children and parents were not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium, however, Rs. 1 Lakh towards loss of love and affection to children and Rs. 1 Lakh to parents towards loss of sons love and affection was awarded which is not stated under which the compensation is to be awarded, but for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium and, therefore, in the facts of the case claimants would be entitled for compensation of 13 Rs. 40,000/- each toward loss of spousal consortium for claimant no.1, towards loss of parental consortium to claimant no. 2 and 3 and towards loss of filial consortium to claimant no. 4 and 5. It is ordered accordingly. 28. Now the claimant will be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/-). The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of estate, for which the claimant would be entitled for the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. 29. According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) there shall be increase of 10% of compensation award under the conventional head like loss of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Accordingly, it is ordered that the compensation awarded under aforementioned head shall be increased by 10%. 30. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under: Particulars Compensation Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 21,52,710 /- ₹ 11,390/- ( 11,390 ₹ x12= Rs. 1,36,680/-) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses ( 1,36,680 ₹ x 1/4= ₹ 34,170); ₹ 1,36,680 - ₹ 34,170/- = ₹ 1,02,510/- Multiplier of 15 ₹ 1,02,510 x 15 = ₹ 15,37,650 /- Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 15,37,650 + 40% of ₹ 15,37,650/- = ₹ 6,15,060/- ) Loss of spousal consortium to claimant ₹ 44,000 /- No. 1 Loss of parental consortium to claimant ₹ 88,000 /- no. 2 & 3(Rs. 44,000/- each) 14 Loss of filial consortium to Claimant no. Rs. 88,000/- 4 and 5(Rs. 44,000/- each) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total 16₹ 16₹ ,500/- ,500/- ₹ 24,05,710/- 31. As the appellant Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of compensation by the claimant, therefore, I do not find appropriate to interfere with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 24,17,710/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact. 32. For the foregoing discussion, both the appeals being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Alfiza sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge