Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:37684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1221 of 2018 1 - Smt. Ghasin Bai Wd/o Late Ramlal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jenjara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sawan Singh S/o Late Amar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Jenjara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Yuvraj S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 5 Years (Minor), Through Their Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Smt. Ghasin Bai, Widow Of Late Ramlal, R/o Village Jenjara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Punam, D/o Late Ramla (Wrongly Written As Ramla) Aged About 3 Years (Minor), Through Their Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Smt. Ghasin Bai, Widow Of Late Ramlal, R/o Village Jenjara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) --- Appellants versus 1 - Premlal Jayaswal S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Jayaswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Podi, P.S. And Tehsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Trailer Truck No. C.G. 04 Hb6011) 2 - Surjeet Singh, S/o Shri Pyara Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Trailer Truck No. Cg 04 Hb 6011) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Managar, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Trailer Truck No. Cg 04 Hb 6011) --- Respondents 2 MAC No. 951 of 2018 Surjeet Singh S/o Pyara Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 2) ---Appellant Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Ghasin Bai W/o Late Ramlal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Jajra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Laxmin Bai (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 31-07-2025) 3 - Sawan Singh S/o Late Amar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Jajra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Yuraj Singh S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 5 Years (Minor) Through Legal Guardian Smt. Ghasin Bai (Mother) R/o Village - Jajra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku Poonam S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 3 Years (Minor) Through Legal Guardian Smt. Ghasin Bai (Mother) R/o Village - Jajra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 6 - Premlal Jaiswal, S/o Jahawarlal Jaiswal R/o Village - Podi Thane And Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office T.P. Nagart, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Claimants : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Driver : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Owner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Insurance Mr. Qamarul Aziz, Advocate Company 3 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 31.07.2025 1. As both the appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed
Decision
together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the award dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.119/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.10,64,000/- as total compensation and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicant No.2 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. 3. MAC No.1221/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation stating that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased as well as awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably, whereas MAC No.951/2018 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle questioning the liability fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 12- 4 13.03.2014, at about 12.45 AM, Ramlal (since deceased) along with his brother Rajendra was returning from Pali to Katghora, at that relevant time, non-applicant No.1 therein i.e. driver of Trailer bearing registration No.CG-04-HB-0611 dashed the said Bolero, due to which Ramlal died on the spot. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station, based upon which, crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The legal heirs of Ramlal have filed an application under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) seeking total compensation of Rs.38,00,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as driver and earning Rs.9,500/- per month. 6. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 stated in their reply that the deceased Ramlal died due to an accident caused by his own negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle. They denied any involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and asserted that no accident was caused by non-applicant No. 1. They further alleged that the claimants, taking undue advantage of the fact that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the incident, lodged a report against non-applicant No. 1 at the Pali Police Station. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured on the date of the incident, they claimed that the liability, if any, would lie with the Insurance Company. 7. Non-applicant No. 3, i.e. Insurance Company in its reply, stated 5 that the accident occurred as a result of a head on collision between the two vehicles. Therefore, it contended that both the deceased Ramlal and non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were jointly liable for the accident due to contributory negligence. It was further stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to operate the offending and hence, he was not authorized to drive the said offending vehicle in terms of the insurance policy, which constituted a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. Consequently, the insurance company disclaimed any liability for compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.48,000/- per annum. While adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded an amount of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.10,64,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its 6 realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence led by the claimants in its proper perspective. The claimants had examined material witnesses and produced sufficient documentary evidence to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and the resultant death of the deceased. He further submits that despite the uncontroverted and cogent evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously failed to grant the entire claim amount as prayed for. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to assess the compensation in a just and reasonable manner in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The award passed is not commensurate with the loss suffered by the dependents of the deceased and falls short of the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for determining just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased was working as a driver on the offending vehicle and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- along with Rs.1,500/- as daily allowance (DA). Despite there being no effective rebuttal to the said fact, the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased only Rs.4,000/- per month, which is wholly untenable and contrary to the settled principles. The amount assessed by the Tribunal is 7 akin to notional income, which applies only in the absence of proof of income, and not in the present case where credible evidence was led. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award just and adequate compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The amounts awarded under these heads are meagre and not in conformity with the guidelines laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, and subsequent judgments. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajwati alias Rajjo and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, to buttress his submissions. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the owner to satisfy the award by holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver was in possession of a valid and effective driving license to drive LMV, Medium Goods Vehicle, and Heavy Goods Vehicle, which clearly covered the category of the offending vehicle and the driving licence of the driver was valid from 8 17.09.2002 to 16.09.2022. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence or that there was any willful breach of policy conditions. The burden of proving breach of policy conditions lies squarely upon the insurer, which it failed to discharge. It has been submitted that the on 05.03.2018, the owner of the offending vehicle has moved an application before the Tribunal seeking permission to produce the original driving licence of the driver. However, the learned Tribunal, without assigning any justifiable reasons, rejected the said application. The learned Claims Tribunal also failed to consider the fact that the driving licence was seized by the police at the time of the accident. The seizure of the licence is clearly recorded in the First Information Report (FIR) itself. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal that the driver was not holding a valid licence is not only contrary to the evidence on record but also against the settled legal position. It is well settled that once the driving licence is seized by the police during investigation, the insured cannot be held liable for non-production of the same before the Claims Tribunal. It is also the duty of the Insurance Company to verify the validity of the licence, especially when its existence has been demonstrated by documentary evidence. It has been further submitted that learned Claims Tribunal gave undue importance to the FIR, which itself records that the driver was in possession of a licence that was seized by 9 the police. Thus, fastening the liability upon the owner on the basis of the FIR, without verifying the authenticity of the license, is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law. As such, he prayed that the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal holding the owner to be liable and exonerating the Insurance cCmpany be set aside, and the Insurance Company be held liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms of the policy. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court finds it appropriate to first decide the appeal filed by the claimants. 13. Perusal of paragraphs 10 to 13 of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased Ramlal. Despite the fact that Smt. Ghasinbai, wife of the deceased, clearly stated that her husband Ramlal was earning Rs. 9,500/- per month by working as a driver and had produced a work and salary certificate (Ex. P/15) in support thereof, the learned Tribunal arbitrarily rejected this uncontroverted evidence. Further corroboration of his income was 10 made by Liladhar Shrivas, who is the Director of Sai Tours and Travels, who categorically deposed that the deceased was employed as a driver for his private vehicle bearing number CG- 12-D-0535 and was being paid a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month along with Rs. 1,500/- as daily allowance, thus totalling Rs. 9,500/- per month. 14. However, the learned Tribunal erroneously discarded the said evidence on the ground that no supporting register or salary disbursement record was produced, and concluded that the deceased was earning only Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is wholly arbitrary, speculative, and contrary to the settled principles of law that oral evidence duly corroborated by a salary certificate cannot be disregarded in a summary proceeding like motor accident claims. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajwati alias Rajjo (supra) has dealt with the similar issue and observed as follows:- “20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident 11 compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”. 21. In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay slip (Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s income at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to, Rs.11,225/- x 12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.” 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the judgment rendered in Rajwati @ Rajjo (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in discarding the salary certificate (Ex.P/15) issued by the employer 12 of the deceased. The certificate clearly states that the deceased was employed as a driver with Sai Tour and Travels and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. 17. There is no cogent reason assigned by the Tribunal for disbelieving the said document, which was duly proved by the testimony of the employer, Liladhar Shrivas, who also entered the witness box and affirmed that the deceased Ramlal was working under him and was being paid the stated amount. The document (Ex.P/15) was not controverted by any contrary evidence on behalf of the insurance company. 18. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence or proof of fabrication, the rejection of Ex.P/15 by the learned Claims Tribunal is unsustainable in law. The judgment in Rajwati @ Rajjo (supra) clearly lays down that a duly proved salary certificate issued by an employer cannot be discarded in a mechanical manner without justifiable reasons. 19. Accordingly, this Court holds that at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month while working as driver i.e. Rs.96,000/- per annum. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 32 years of age, there is 13 no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 32 years as contended by the claimants. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with fixed income, 50% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.1,08,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 16 as rightly applied by learned Claims Tribunal, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.17,28,000/-. 20. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 14 21. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 22. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month Rs.96,000/- annum per 50% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 96,000 + 48,000 = Rs.1,44,000/- 1/4 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 1,44,000 / 4 = Rs.36,000/- 4. Compensation after 1,08,000 x 16 Rs.17,28,000/- multiplier of 16 applied 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,92,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.18,000/- Rs.19,56,000/- 15 23. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.19,56,000/-. After deducting Rs.10,64,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.8,92,000/-. 24. From the above discussions, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1221/2018 is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.8,92,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1221/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.8,92,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 26. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.951/2018. 27. The learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award has fastened upon the owner and the driver of the vehicle holding that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy due to absence of a valid driving licence by disbelieved the driving licence (Ex.P/6) produced before it on the ground that the licence number was not reflected therein, and further Premlal Jaiswal (driver) neither produced his driving licence nor adduced any oral 16 evidence to prove that he was in possession of a valid licence at the relevant time. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal concluded that the owner and driver failed to prove that the driver was duly licensed, and therefore, fastened the liability on them. 28. Learned counsel for the owner has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed, annexing therewith the copy of the driver’s licence. By order dated 30.04.2019, this Court directed the Insurance Company to verify the genuineness of the licence so produced. 29. Pursuant to the said order, the Insurance Company filed its reply on 03.07.2019, stating that upon verification, the driving licence was found to be genuine and was valid on the date and time of the accident. 30. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and particularly considering that the only reason for fastening the liability upon the owner and driver was the alleged failure to prove the validity of the driving licence, this Court finds merit in the appeal. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is accordingly allowed. The driving licence now stands duly verified and proved to be valid at the relevant time. 31. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.951/2018 is allowed and the finding of the 17 Claims Tribunal fastening liability on the owner and driver is set aside. 32. As this Court is of the opinion that the owner of the offending vehicle is exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation and as such, the Insurance Company is held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 33. In that view of the matter, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 34. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Sd/- Judge Yogesh