Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 13 2025:CGHC:41431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1083 of 2019 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA • The United India Insurance Company Limited Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) versus --- Appellant 1. Gangaram Nag S/o Late Aasharam Nag Aged About 35 Years 2. Ku. Laxmi Nag D/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Their Father Gangaram Nag, 3. Ku. Payal Nag D/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 10 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Their Father Gangaram Nag 4. Dhanraj Nag S/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Their Father Gangaram Nag All are R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanar, Tehsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 5. Pawan Kumar Nag S/o Gangaram Nag Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chewaras, Thana - Kukanar, District Sukma Chhattisgarh (Driver and Owner). --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1079 of 2019 • The United India Insurance Company Limited Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Appellant 1. Lakheshwar Naag S/o Ghenwa Ram Naag Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bodaras, Thana Kukanaar, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. (Clamant) 2. Pawan Kumar Naag S/o Ganga Ram Naag Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chewaraas, Thana Kukanaar District Sukma Chhattisgarh. (Driver & Owner) --- Respondents 2 / 13 ____________________________________________________________ MAC No. 1083 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
As this Court has held 16% loss of future earning, therefore, loss of future earning will come to ₹ 16684.8 (₹ 104280x16%), rounded off to ₹ 16,685 p.a. Upon applying multiplier of 18 as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. 10 / 13 reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total loss of future earning will be ₹ 3,00,330 (₹ 16685x18). 25. Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of income during period of treatment. Considering the nature of injury, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to hold that claimant could not be able to work for about 02 months, accordingly compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment will come to ₹ 12,414 (₹ 6207x2). Claimant will also be entitled for amount of compensation of ₹ 25,000 towards medical expenses, ₹ 10,000 towards pain and suffering, ₹ 20,000 towards loss of amenities in life, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal and ₹ 3,000 towards special diet, ₹ 2,000 towards conveyance expenses and ₹ 5,000 towards attendant. 26. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to claimant in MAC No. 1079 of 2019 requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Loss of future income Loss of income during treatment period Medical Expenses (maintained) Pain and suffering (maintained) Loss of amenities in life (maintained) Special Diet Conveyance Expenses Attender Total Compensation ₹ 3,00,330/- ₹ 12,414/- ₹ 25,000/- ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 20,000/- ₹ 3,000/- ₹ 2,000/- ₹ 5,000/- ₹ 3,77,744/- 27. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 3,77,744/- instead of ₹ 55,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 11 / 13 • Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions of impugned award as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 28. Now I will consider the prayer made by learned counsel for respondent in MAC No. 1079 of 2019 for issuance of direction to appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun (supra) while considering the appeal filed by claimants who were occupants of the car and their risk was not covered under the policy had issued direction of pay and recover observing thus: “19. We find no merit in any of the submissions. Firstly, as mentioned above, we find marked similarity in the facts of this case and the one involved in Saju P. Paul case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] . Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in Saju P. Paul case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] , it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench as would be clear from para 26 of the judgment in Saju P. Paul case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] . That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants stated at the Bar that the reference made to the larger Bench has since been disposed of by keeping the issue undecided. It is for this reason also, the argument does not survive any more. 20. It is for all these reasons, we find no good ground to take a different view than the one 12 / 13 consistently being taken by this Court in all previous decisions, which are referred supra, in this regard. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent 3) — they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent 3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in para 26 of Saju P. Paul case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] quoted supra.” 29. In the case at hand, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, appellant-insurance company has already deposited 75% of the awarded amount of compensation and the interim order also mentions that the order shall not come in the way of disbursement of the amount so deposited by the appellant-insurance company in favour of claimant, from which it is also reflecting that the claimant might have withdrawn the amount so deposited by the insurance company. 30. In the above peculiar facts of the case, taking into consideration the decision in Manuara Khatun’s case (supra), I do not find any reason not to accept the submission made by counsel for respondent-claimant and accordingly while exonerating the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation it is directed that appellant-insurance company shall deposit entire amount of compensation as recomputed by this Court, as above, in favour of claimants in both the appeals and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle in accordance with law. 31. For recovery of amount of compensation, so deposited by the Insurance Company, from owner of the offending jeep it will not be required to file separate proceeding but can be recovered in the same proceeding by filing 13 / 13 execution proceeding as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 32. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the appellant-insurance company and the cross-appeal filed by applicant-claimant are allowed in part and the impugned awards are modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate MAC No. 1079 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 18/08/2025 1. As both these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being heard together and dispose of by this common order. 2. Appeal, MAC No. 1083 of 2019 is filed by appellant-insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 27.02.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 31/2018, by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total compensation of ₹ 4,87,000 to the claimants against the death of Smt. Rambati Nag. 3. MAC No. 1079 of 2019 is filed by appellant-insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 27.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 30/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 by the applicant in part and awarded ₹ 55,000 as total compensation in an injury case. 4. In both the claim cases, liability to satisfy the award of compensation is fastened upon non-applicant No. 2-Insurance Company. 5. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 03.01.2017, Smt. Rambati Nag and Lakheshwar Nag, along with others, had gone from their native village to 3 / 13 Kindarwada for an engagement ceremony in a Commander Jeep No. CG 17-C-3701 (hereinafter referred to as “offending jeep”); while returning around 08:30 p.m. on the Bhopawada-Gudra road, the driver (non-applicant No. 1), driving the jeep rashly and negligently, lost control and overturned it, causing serious injuries to Lakheshwar Nag, who remained hospitalized for a month at District Hospital Sukma and has since been became permanently disabled with a deformed left leg, and fatal injuries to Smt. Rambati Nag, who succumbed during treatment the same night; thereafter, on the report of Vijay Nag, a crime was registered against the driver at Police Station Sukma, after investigation charge sheet was filed. 6. Claimants in MAC No. 1083 of 2019 are husband and children of deceased Rambati Nag and applicant-claimant in MAC No. 1079 of 2019 filed applications under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 17,68,000 and ₹ 7,00,000 respectively on the basis of pleadings made therein. 7. Non-applicant No. 1-driver-cum-owner of the offending jeep submitted his reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending jeep was driven carefully. He was possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending jeep. It was also pleaded that the offending jeep was insured with non-applicant No. 2/ insurance company. 8. Non-applicant No. 2- Insurance company submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the application. It is also pleaded that the company issued a liability only policy for offending vehicle, which covers the risk of third party only and not of other occupants. It is also contended that the vehicle driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident and was using the vehicle in violation of policy conditions by 4 / 13 carrying passengers. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties had allowed the applications in both the claim cases in part, holding that the deceased-Smt. Rambati Nag suffered fatal injuries and applicant Lakheshwar Nag suffered permanent disability due to injuries suffered in accident because of rash and negligent driving of offending jeep by its driver-non-applicant No. 1. Tribunal computed the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 4,87,000 against death of Smt. Rambati Nag and ₹ 55,000 against injuries caused to applicant Lakheshwar Nag. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. 10. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that in both the appeals common ground is raised that the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured where the policy which is purchased for the offending jeep by non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 5 is an Act Only Policy. In the said policy, risk of third party was only covered whereas the deceased Smt. Rambati Nag and the claimant Lakheshwar Nag were occupants in the vehicle. They were returning back to their home after attending engagement function. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal has considered the deceased and the claimant who were occupant of the vehicle to be third party which is per se illegal. It is contended that as the insurance company has not charged any premium covering the wide risk of occupant of the vehicle also then in the facts of the case insurance company cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation to claimants as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M. and others reported in (2001) ACJ 2059, General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Laxmi and others reported in 2009 5 / 13 (1) T.A.C. 6 (SC), Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2013 and decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohan Lal and others passed in MAC No. 1353 of 2014 and connected matter. 11. Learned counsel for Respondent- driver cum owner of offending jeep would submit that he is not in a position to dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to coverage of risk of the policy exhibited. He however submits that as pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court insurance company has deposited substantial amount and that has also been withdrawn by claimants, appellant be directed to pay entire amount of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for respondent-claimant (Lakheshwar Nag) would submit that the ground which is raised by the counsel for appellant-insurance company is a dispute between the insurer and insured. He further submit that in the facts of the case even if claimant/ injured was occupant of offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured by the insurance company then to protect the interest of claimant, direction be issued to insurance company to pay entire amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner of offending jeep. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796. He also contended that he has filed cross appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal even after recording a finding that appellant-Lakheshwar Nag suffered 40% permanent disability, he being working as labourer has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability suffered by him. He also contended that in the facts of the case where appellant suffered permanent disability there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards 6 / 13 future prospects and to award compensation under other heads for which claimant is entitled for. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 14. Perusal of claim application would show that claimants in their pleadings have clearly mentioned that on the date of accident, deceased and the injured went to attend engagement function on the offending jeep and while returning from the place of function to their native village offending jeep met with an accident in which Rambati Nag suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries. Lakheshwar Nag suffered fracture injury over his leg. 15. Copy of insurance policy is placed in record as Ext. NA1. Under the heading of policy it is mentioned as “Private Car- Liability Only Policy” issued in the name of Pawan Kumar Nag (non-applicant No. 1) owner of offending jeep. In the schedule of premium it does not mention premium paid covering the risk of occupant of the vehicle also but it mentions basic Third Party premium, Legal Liability to Paid Driver IMT-28 only. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose (supra) has observed that— the finding that the term ‘any person’ would include an occupant who is gratuitously travelling in the car is clearly in respect of a comprehensive policy and not in respect of a third party policy. 16. In the case of United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: "In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy 7 / 13 was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger." 17. In the facts of the case and aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, deceased and the injured-claimant in their respective claim cases cannot be said to be Third Party and the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured for the compensation computed to be awarded to claimants therein in both the claim cases who were occupants of the offending vehicle. 18. Learned Claims Tribunal in para-9 of the impugned award has considered the evidence of NAW-2-1, Abhishek Brijvani, that the Act Only Policy covers risk of Third Party and further referring that there is no breach of policy conditions had held liable the insurance company to satisfy the impugned award, which in the facts of the case is erroneous. Claims Tribunal has not recorded a specific finding as to whether risk of occupant(s) of the vehicle travelling in the private car is covered under the policy or not. However, specific plea has been taken by the insurance company in para-4 in its return that as the risk of passengers is not covered under the policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 19. Parties to the proceedings are well aware about the pleadings made in the claim application as also reply filed therein. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation is set aside and it is held that the liability to pay the amount of compensation as computed by the Claims Tribunal will be upon non- applicant No. 1/ owner of offending vehicle. It is ordered accordingly. 20. So far as the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1-claimant in MAC No. 1079 of 2019 of filing cross-appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for appellant has made primary submission that the Claims Tribunal though has assessed 8 / 13 permanent disability suffered by appellant to the extent of 40% but not awarded compensation accordingly. Perusal of record of Claim Case No. 30/2018 would show that claimant in his claim application pleaded his age about 23 years, occupation to be agricultural labourer and collection of forest produce. He also pleaded that in the motor accident he suffered permanent disability due to which he suffered loss of income also. Claimant is examined as AW-1 and he made statement according to the pleadings made in the claim application. Disability Certificate is filed as Ext. A-8 mentioning 40% permanent disability in left lower limb. It also mentions ankle injury lateral malleolus fracture. To prove the Disability Certificate claimant has examined Dr. L.L. Thakur, Orthopaedic Surgeon as AW-2. In his statement, he stated that permanent disability suffered by claimant is non prescription and not likely to improve, however, in the evidence he stated that nature of permanent disability is mild. 21. As the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that claimant suffered permanent disability, it was duty upon the Tribunal to ascertain percentage of loss of income suffered by claimant due to permanent disability, to award just compensation in the facts of the case in which, Tribunal failed. Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 25,000 towards medical expenses, ₹ 10,000 towards pain and suffering and ₹ 20,000 towards future discomfort due to permanent disability. 22. In some of the cases, this Court has came across the evidence of doctor to assess permanent disability for whole body if the Disability Certificate is issued with regard to part of the body only and in those cases doctor in evidence had stated that for arriving at a conclusion or assessing disability for whole body, permanent disability assessed in the Disability Certificate with respect to part of the body is to be divided by 2.5. Keeping in mind the 9 / 13 said evidence of doctor in other cases, I find it appropriate to assess permanent disability for whole body suffered by claimant as 16% (40÷2.5). In view of aforementioned permanent disability of 16% suffered by the claimant for whole body, in the considered opinion of this Court, claimant suffered 16% functional disability affecting 16% loss of income. 23. Now I will consider the compensation to be awarded to claimants towards loss of future income. Occupation of appellant-claimant has been shown to be labourer, accident is dated 03.01.2017 and as there is no suggestive evidence in record to arrive at a conclusion with regard to daily wages prevailing in the area of which claimant is a resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and as per the notification issued by the competent authority, minimum wages fixed for the period from 30.09.2016 till 31.03.2017 for unskilled labourer is ₹ 6,207/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 6,207. It is ordered accordingly. 24. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of claimant as observed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation, which makes the monthly income of claimant as ₹ 8689.8, rounded off to ₹ 8,690 per month ie., ₹ 1,04,280 p.a.