Smt Basanti Pradhan & Others v. Rajesh Patel & others
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 750 of 2018 1 - Smt. Basanti Pradhan W/o Late Hemsagar Pradhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Bnabira, Tehsil Sohela, District Bargad, Orrisa, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 2 - Ku. Lilima Pradhan D/o Late Hemsagar Pradhan Aged About 18 Years R/o Bnabira, Tehsil Sohela, District Bargad, Orrisa, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 3 - Aman Pradhan S/o Hemsagar Pradhan Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother/appellant No.1 Smt. Basanti Pradhan, R/o Bnabira, Tehsil Sohela, District Bargad, Orrisa, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 4 - Premanand Pradhan S/o Late Hemsagar Pradhan Aged About 20 Years R/o Mathpara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Rajesh Patel S/o Shri Ravindra Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Basti Saraipali, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Dumper No. Cg/m/0307), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Regional Office- Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Near Maruti Heights Dealership, G.E.Road District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Dumper No. Cg/m/0307), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahesh Sahu S/o Radhakant Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Hirapali, Post Chichida, P.S. Sohela, District Bargad, Orrisa (Owner Of Bolero No. Od-17/c/9901), District : Bargarh *, Orissa 4 - The National Insurance Company Limited Bargad Branch Cannal Avenue, District Bargad (Orrisa), Through Regional Manager, Mobin Mahal G.E.Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Bolero No. Od-17/c/9901), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Arpana Singh, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Resp. No. 4
Legal Reasoning
expenses, and other conventional heads is ex facie meager and deserves to be suitably enhanced. The Tribunal has failed to assess the compensation in accordance with the multiplier method and other guiding principles. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal to the extent it holds contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and re-assess and enhance the compensation amount in accordance with the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 4 submits that the insurance company is fully exonerated from any liability in the present case, as the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident 5 were not holding valid and effective driving licences at the time of the incident. This amounts to a clear and willful breach of the policy conditions stipulated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the insurance contract. Hence, in the absence of valid driving licences and given the clear breach of statutory and contractual obligations, the insurer, respondents No. 2 & 4, stands legally and contractually exonerated from all liability. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7. First and foremost question is that whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of two vehicles ? Upon a meticulous examination of the evidence presented on record, alongside the documentary evidence and the First Information Report marked as Exhibit P/2, it emerges that the Dumper vehicle bearing registration number CG-04-MO-0307 was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. This reckless driving was the proximate cause of the accident which resulted in the Bolero vehicle, driven by Mr. Hemsagar Pradhan, being severely impacted. The claimant side has also adduced evidence through witness A/W-2, Sharad Kumar Barik, whose deposition is of particular significance in this regard. This witness has unequivocally stated that the Dumper was proceeding from Saraipali towards Sohela and was being driven at a high rate of speed. It is 6 further noted from the testimony that both vehicles were moving in opposite directions at the time of the incident, thereby making it evident that the collision occurred due to the manner in which the Dumper was operated. The evidence of this witness, therefore, lends credence to the assertion of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Dumper. Furthermore, the testimony of witness A/W-3, Vishwajeet Bahra, reinforces this position. This witness has stated that the accident was the result of a collision between the two vehicles involved. It is also recorded in the evidence that the driver of the Dumper sustained injuries to his head. The combined testimony of these witnesses indicates that both drivers suffered serious and grievous injuries as a result of the accident. Regrettably, it has also been established that both drivers ultimately succumbed to their injuries during the course of medical treatment. This fact underscores the severity of the collision and the consequences of the negligent driving involved. 8. In light of the above, it is apparent that contributory negligence is attributable to both parties. The rash and negligent driving of the driver of Dumper is evident, and similarly, the injuries sustained by the Bolero driver indicate that factors on both sides contributed to the accident. Therefore, the element of contributory negligence on the part of both drivers is proved beyond doubt on the basis of the evidence led in this matter. 9. The issue that now demands consideration is the extent of contributory negligence attributable to the drivers of both vehicles involved in the accident. Upon a careful analysis of the testimonies of claimant witnesses A/W-2 and A/W-3, it is apparent that the offending vehicle, 7 the Dumper, was being driven at an excessive speed at the time of the collision. An examination of the relative physical characteristics and structural composition of the vehicles involved further informs this assessment. It is evident that the Dumper, by virtue of its heavier build and larger mass, is inherently more capable of causing damage in a collision as compared to the relatively lighter Bolero vehicle. This disparity in vehicular weight and size plays a critical role in assessing the degree of contributory negligence. The proposition of an equal apportionment of liability, namely, a 50:50 split of contributory negligence between the two vehicles, does not align with the principles of law and justice as applicable to the facts of the present case. While it is acknowledged that contributory negligence has been established on the part of both drivers, the quantum of such negligence must be carefully calibrated in light of the evidence and the circumstances of the collision. 10. Accordingly, this Court affirms the presence of contributory negligence on both sides but holds that the appropriate apportionment of liability is not equal. After due consideration, the Court fixes the extent of contributory negligence at 75% attributable to the Dumper and 25% to the Bolero vehicle. The greater share of negligence on the part of the Dumper driver is justified by the excessive speed at which the vehicle was driven and the significant disparity in vehicle mass, which exacerbated the impact and resultant injuries. Therefore, the Court concludes that the contributory negligence borne by the Dumper is substantial and rightly fixed at seventy-five percent (75%), while the contributory negligence attributable to the Bolero driver is fixed at 8 twenty-five percent (25%). 11. With regard to the other rights and entitlements claimed by the respective parties, it is pertinent to refer to the authoritative precedent set forth in Pranay Sethi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In the aforementioned judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly held that where consortium has not been granted to certain claimants, an award for filial consortium shall be granted to them. In the present matter, claimants No. 2, 3, and 4 have not been awarded consortium rights; accordingly, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each is mandated to be awarded to these claimants by way of filial consortium. Furthermore, the Pranay Sethi’s judgment stipulates that the amount awarded for consortium is subject to a statutory enhancement at the rate of 10% per every three-year period post the initial award, to account for inflation and the time value of money. Applying this principle to the instant case, and considering the elapsed period since the original award, a cumulative increase of 20% (10% for the first three years and an additional 10% for the subsequent three years) is applicable. Consequently, the filial consortium amount to be awarded to the son and daughter of the deceased now stands adjusted to Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty-Eight Thousand only) each. 12. In light of the foregoing, the original award is hereby modified and supplemented to the extent that claimants No. 2, 3, and 4 shall each receive Rs. 48,000/- as filial consortium, inclusive of the prescribed increments pursuant to the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case. This modification is without prejudice to any other rights or entitlements 9 that may have been awarded or may be claimed by the respective parties. 13. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,45,500/- in the following manner:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1 Towards loss of income Rs. 7,80,000/- 2 Towards loss of estate (with 10% Rs. 18,000/- increase in every 3 years) 3 Towards Filial Consortium to all the Rs. 1,44,000/- three claimants @ Rs. 48,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase Rs. 18,000/- in every 3 years) 5 Loss of Consortium to widow (with Rs. 48,000/- 10% increase in every 3 years) 6 Gross Total Rs. 10,08,000/- 7 Deduction made towards Contributory Rs. 2,52,000/- (25% Negligence of the gross total) Net Total Rs. 7,56,000/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,56,000/-. After deducting Rs. 4,40,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,16,000/-.
Arguments
: Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 12/06/2025 Order on Board 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 614/15 (“Smt Basanti Pradhan & Others vs. Rajesh Patel & others.”) 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that the appellants, being the legal heirs (wife and children) of the deceased Shri Hemsagar Pradhan, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his death resulting from a road accident. According to the claim, on 22.02.2018, the deceased was driving a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number OD-17/C/9901 from Bargad to Saraipali. When he reached near Rajput Dhaba, Village Panking, on National Highway 53, a Dumper truck bearing registration number CG-04/MO/0307, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the Bolero, causing severe injuries to Hemsagar Pradhan. He was immediately taken to Burla Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants sought a total compensation of ₹ 33,30,000/- under various heads due to the loss of life and support. Respondent No.1, allegedly the driver or owner of the Dumper, contested the claim, stating that the deceased was at fault, as he was driving the Bolero negligently on the wrong side of the road and was solely responsible for the accident. Respondent No. 2, the insurance company of the Dumper, denied liability by asserting that the 3 deceased did not possess a valid driving license or permit at the time of the incident and that the Bolero was being driven in violation of the policy terms, thereby relieving the insurer from any responsibility to compensate. Respondent No.3, the registered owner of the Bolero, argued that the accident occurred in Odisha and questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but ultimately did not contest the claim and was proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 4, the insurer of the Bolero, also denied liability on the grounds that the deceased lacked a valid driving license and the policy conditions were breached, thus the claim should be dismissed. After evaluating the evidence presented by the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the death of Hemsagar Pradhan on 22.02.2018 was the result of the road accident. However, the Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of only ₹ 4,40,000/-, which the appellants claim is grossly inadequate considering the circumstances of the case and the supporting materials on record. Consequently, they have preferred the present appeal, contending that the compensation awarded is insufficient and does not reflect the actual loss suffered by the family. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and meager, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The compensation awarded fails to meet the standards of "just compensation" as envisaged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in not applying the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions concerning computation of compensation in motor 4 accident cases. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the age, income, future prospects of the deceased, and the loss of dependency suffered by the appellants, thereby resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts in holding that the accident was a result of contributory negligence. The finding that the deceased, who was driving the Bolero vehicle, was partly at fault is patently erroneous and unsupported by the evidence on record. On the contrary, it is the Dumper vehicle which was the offending vehicle and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as established by the evidence. The accident is therefore one of composite negligence, attributable solely to the driver of the Dumper vehicle, and as such, the entire liability ought to have been fastened upon the owner and insurer of the said offending vehicle. Additionally, it is submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads such as loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral
Decision
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,16,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10 16. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE