Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 863 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Vijayvada Andhra Pradesh Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office Kutchery Square Jail Road Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Signatory The New India Assurance (Insurance) Company Limited Bilaspur Division Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank. Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Neelam Bhandari W/o Krishna Lal Bhandari, Aged About 55 Years R/o C - 44 Gayatri Nagar Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishan Lal Bhandari, S/o Late Vishvamitra Bhandari, Aged About 61 Years R/o C - 44 Gayatri Nagar Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - G. Yadgiri Sinyya R/o Hayat Nagar Subodha Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. (Driver), District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Legal Reasoning
4 - M/s Sri Kaleshwari Travels, C/o C.H. Ramesh R/o D - No. 19/4 T S P Road Kalasi Palayam, Bangalore, Karnatak (K Natak Wrongly 2 Mentioned ) Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bangalore Rural, Karnataka --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 621 of 2018 1 - Smt. Neelam Bhandari W/o Shri Krishnlal Bhandari Aged About 55 Years R/o C-44, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District And Tehsil Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishnlal Bhandari S/o Late Vishwamitra Bhandari Aged About 61 Years R/o C-44, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District And Tehsil Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - G. Yadgiri Sinyya R/o Hayat Nagar, Subodha, Hyderabad (A.P.) (Driver), District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 2 - M/s Shri Kaleswari Trevels Through C.H.Ramesh, R/o D.No. 19/4, T.S.P. Road, Kalasi Palayam, Banglore, Karnatak (Owner), Karnataka 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Vijayvada, Andhara Pradesh, Through Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Kachahri Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate and Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of their respective parties. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) 3 Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred by the Insurance Company and Claimants challenging the award dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.47 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of 8,76,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum ₹ from the date of claim petition from the date of its filing. 2. Facts of the present cases are, in nutshell, are that on 16.06.2012, the deceased, namely Goutam Bhandari, was travelling as a passenger in Bus bearing Registration No. KA-01- 0245 from Hyderabad to Shirdi. At about 1:30–2:00 A.M., due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the vehicle lost balance and fell from More Bridge into a ditch along National Highway No. 09 (Hyderabad–Mumbai Highway). As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are the driver, owner, and insurer, respectively, of the offending vehicle. The incident was reported at Police Station Naldurg, Solapur, District Usmanabad, Maharashtra, and the concerned police registered a criminal case against respondent No. 1. The Final Report (Ex. P/2), F.I.R. (Ex.P/2), and Post Mortem Report (Ex. P/3) were submitted by 4 the claimant, confirming that a criminal case was registered before the competent court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal, and therefore, their written statements were not filed. The case of respondent No. 3 (insurance company) is that the deceased was driving without a valid driving license. Furthermore, it is contended that, as per Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proper investigation was not conducted by the investigating officer. It is also alleged that the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of the said Act were not followed by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, and hence, due to violation of the insurance policy terms, the insurance company is not liable and should be exonerated. After the accident, the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Raipur, stating that at the time of the accident, the deceased was about 28 years of age, employed as a consultant with Deloitte Tax Services, and earning approximately Rs. 3,87,000/- per annum. The dependents were entirely reliant on his income. Accordingly, the claimants sought Rs. 90,50,000/- as compensation from the respondents, jointly and severally. After hearing the parties, the M.A.C.T., Raipur, awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,76,400/-, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle had remained ex- parte before the Tribunal and did not submit/file their written submission/reply. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that they have filed this petitioner for enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal as income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed to Rs.6000/- per month i.e. Rs.72,000/- per year whereas the deceased was earning Rs.3,87,000/- per year and proof is duly annexed as Ex.P/4. He goes on to submit that the income towards personal expenses and multiplier has also incorrectly been applied. The other conventional heads have also not been considered with appropriate perspective as such the award passed by the Tribunal is required to be enhance suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, while filing separate claim petition challenging the liability part fastened upon the insurance company stating that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to plying the vehicle, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company and It was the breach of insurance policy. Secondly, the driver of the offending vehicle was intoxicated due to which I the mid night the offending vehicle bus was met with an accident. A huge amount of compensation has been fixed by the Tribunal which cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. 6 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid & Anr. Vs. Grivasan E. K. & Ors.1 wherein the insurance company was exonerated from his liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor. Since the driver and owner of the vehicle were also remain ex-parte before the Tribunal and they have not filed their written submission/reply. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record. 8. The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement states that it is an admitted position that, as per the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was about 35 years, and he was earning Rs. 3,87,000/- per annum at the time of the accident. Ex.P/4 is the appointment letter of the deceased issued by Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. However, the claimants failed to adduce any evidence to prove the said document, as a result of which it cannot be considered proved. Accordingly, the income of the deceased was held not to be proved. Hence, considering the minimum wages, the deceased was held to be earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 72,000/- per annum. 1 MACA No.616 of 2018 decided on 30.01.2023 7 9. So far as dependency is concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant No. 1 (mother of the deceased) was dependent on the deceased, but the appellant No. 2 (father of the deceased) was not considered a dependent. The Tribunal stated that he was engaged in some private service and there was no evidence to show that appellant No. 2 was dependent upon the deceased. 10. Insofar as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the insurance company has challenged it, stating that as per Ex.D/3, the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be intoxicated under the influence of liquor. The bus was also being operated without a permit; as such, the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. The learned Tribunal has considered this aspect with regard to the breach of policy conditions, since the driver was under the influence of an intoxicating substance. 11. According to Ex.D/3, which is the Alcohol Examination Certificate of the driver, the blood alcohol content was 0.069%, equivalent to 60 ml. However, based on the evidence presented by the insurance company, it could not be established that the accident occurred due to this small percentage of alcohol found in the driver’s blood. There must be some cogent evidence from which it can be concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle was under so much influence of alcohol due to which bus met 8 with an accident and it was the direct result of consuming liquor. Supportive evidence of such a link is lacking in the present case. 12. With respect to the issue of the absence of a permit, it is observed that merely the absence of a permit cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there was a breach of the insurance policy. The insurance company has failed to prove that there was a violation of the policy conditions. In light of the precedent set in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2 , if the vehicle was driven without a permit, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the Tribunal in holding the insurance company liable is legally sound and does not warrant interference of this Court. 13. So far as the issue of enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is observed that no witness was examined to prove the income of the deceased through documentary evidence. Therefore, the income claimed by the claimants, based on the documents annexed, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased by applying the Minimum Wages Act, determining it to be 6,000 per month. Since the ₹ deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The claimants are entitled for consortium compensation of 40,000, with an increase of 10% ₹ 2 2016 ACJ 679 9 every three years as per prevailing legal standards, which amounts to 48,000. Additionally, under the heads of loss of ₹ estate and funeral expenses, applying the same 10% increase every three years, the compensation is computed at 18,000 ₹ each. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sn. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Heads Calculation Annual Income of deceased Rs.72,000/- (6,000 x 12) Future Prospect 40% Rs.72,000 + 40% = Rs.28,800/- Total Income of the Deceased Rs.1,00,800/- Deduction of Personal Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.50,400 (½) Expenses 1/2 = Rs.50,400/- Multiplier of 16 Rs.50,400 x 16 = Rs.8,06,400/- Loss of Consortium (with Rs.48,000/- increase of 10% in every three years) Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Total compensation : Rs.8,90,400/- 15. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.8,90,400/- from Rs.8,76,400/-. Thus, there is an 10 enhancement of Rs.14,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (7.5% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 16. As a result, the appeal for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. The award dated 16.02.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the liability part is dismissed, as there is no scope for interference. The rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 17. The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing regarding the enhanced amount. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena