High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 NAFR HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:46:58 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 375 of 2021 1 - Arjun @ Arju Kadti S/o Shri Somlu Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Village Panchayat Toynaar, Thana Mirtur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Budri W/o Arjun@ Arju Kadti Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Bijapur Chhattisgarh. Village Panchayat Thana Mirtur, Toynaar, District 3 - Ku. Anita D/o Arjun @ Arjun Kadti Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Bijapur Chhattisgarh. Village Panchayat Thana Mirtur, Toynaar, District 4 - Ku. Aaso Arjun @ Arju Kadti Aged About 16 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Father Appellant No. 1/ Arjun @ Arju Kadti Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Village Chhattisgarh. Panchayat Toynaar, Bijapur District Mirtur, Thana 5 - Ku. Reshma D/o Arjun @ Arju Kadti Aged About 12 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Father Appellant No. 1/ Arjun @ Arju Kadti ,Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Village Chhattisgarh. Panchayat Toynaar, Bijapur District Mirtur, Thana 6 - Raj Kumar S/o Arjun @ Arju Kadti Aged About 5 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Father Appellant No. 1/ Arjun @ Arju Kadti , Resident Of Metgudha, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Katulnaar, Village Panchayat Toynaar, Thana Mirtur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Santosh Thakur S/o Pancham Singh Thakur Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mingachal , Thana Nemend, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Vehicle No. Cg/04/hb/1068), Chhattisgarh District Bijapur, : 2 - Dilip Bafna S/o Late Champalal Bafna Aged About 56 Years C/o Pradeep Dongre , S/o M.P. Dongre, Aged 42 Years, R/o Old Bus Stand , Bijapur , Tahsil And District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. Another Address R/o Village Telghani Naka, Raipur District Raipur Cg/04/hb/1068 Vehicle Chhattisgarh (Owner) No. 2 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Laxman Avenue Maharani Hospital Road, Jagdalpur , District Bastar , Raipur Chhattisgarh . (Insurer) Vehicle No. Cg/04/hb/1068 --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 487 of 2021 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Laxman Avenue Maharani Hospital Road Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, T.P. Hub Bilaspur, 1st Floor Rama Trade Centre Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 (Insurance Co.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Arjun @ Arju Kadati S/o Somalu Aged About 47 Years Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Budari W/o Arjun @ Arju Kadati Aged About 45 Years Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss Anita D/o Arjun @ Arju Kadati Aged About 18 Years Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Miss Aaso D/o. Arjun @ Arju Kadati Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Arjun @ Arju Kadati (Father) Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Miss Reshma D/o. Arjun @ Arju Kadati Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Arjun @ Arju Kadati (Father) Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Raj Kumar S/o Arjun @ Arju Kadati Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Arjun @ Arju Kadati (Father) Temporary R/o. Metaguda Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Permanent Address Village Katulnar Village Panchayat Toynar P.S. Mirtur District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Santosh Thakur S/o. Pancham Singh Thakur, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Mingachal P.S. Naimed District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Dilip Bafana S/o Late Champalal Bafana Aged About 56 Years C/o. Pradeep Dongare S/o. M.P. Dongare Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Old Bus Stand Bijapur Tahsil And District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) Additional Address R/o. Village Telighani Naka Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 For Claimants : Ms. Anamika Jain on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Owner : Ms. Manubha Shankar on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan For Insurance Company : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Parganiha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 09.09.2025 1. These two appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the MV Act"), arising out of the common award dated 19.03.2021, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (for short, "the learned Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 260/2019. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their original status before the learned Tribunal. 2. MAC No. 375/2021 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in their favour, whereas MAC No. 487/2021 has been filed by the insurance company seeking exoneration from liability to pay compensation. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 42,72,800/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,59,600/- in favour of the claimants, holding the insurance company liable to satisfy the award. 3. As per the pleadings in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased, Rinku@ Rinku Ram Kadti, aged about 20 years, was working as a painter. On the date of the accident, i.e., 07.10.2019, he, along with his acquaintance, was travelling to Jagdalpur to attend a fair in the offending vehicle, namely, a Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-04-HB-1068. It is alleged that the driver of the said vehicle drove it rashly and negligently, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle, causing grievous injuries to the deceased, who subsequently succumbed to the same. 4 4. The further pleadings reflect that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, and the claimants were dependent upon his income for their survival. Hence, the compensation as claimed in the petition was sought. 5. The claim application was contested by the respondents on various grounds. The insurance company, in particular, raised a specific plea that the offending vehicle was insured for private use only, whereas it was being plied for hire and reward as a taxi. It was therefore contended that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and consequently, the insurance company was not liable and ought to be exonerated from payment of compensation. 6. The learned tribunal framed issues on the basis of above pleadings and decided the came in faovur of the claimants holding the insurance company to pay the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. 8. Learned counsel for the owner supports the impugned award. 9. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that Issue No. 2, relating to the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, has been erroneously decided by the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the witnesses of the claimants themselves admitted that the deceased was travelling after paying fare, and the witnesses of the insurance company also deposed that the offending vehicle was insured for private purposes but was in fact being used for hire and reward as a taxi. Therefore, it is argued that the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation and ought to be exonerated. Apart from this, learned counsel further submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, a deduction of one-half of his income towards personal expenses ought to have been made. However, the learned 5 Tribunal wrongly applied a one-third deduction, which requires interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 11. At the outset, this Court considers it appropriate to examine the question of just compensation to be awarded to the claimants. The learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month, added future prospects, and after deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses, awarded compensation under the conventional and other admissible heads, thereby determining the total compensation as stated above. 12. As per the pleadings in the claim application, the deceased was working as a painter and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The accident occurred on 07.10.2019. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, and his parents and siblings were stated to be dependent upon him. Having regard to the evidence available on record, the minimum wages, the age of the deceased, the number of dependents, and the nature of his vocation, this Court is inclined to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/-. 13. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S. 1. 2. 3. 4. Particular Awarded by this Court Monthly Income of the deceased Future Prospects @ 40% Total Income Total Yearly Income 8,500/- 34,00/- 11,900/- 11,900 X12= 1,42,800/- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 6 Personal expenditure (1/2) Multiplier of 18 applied to assess 1,42,800/2= 71,400/- 71,400 X18= 12,85,200/- total loss of dependency Funeral Expenses Loss of estate Parental Consortium Total compensation 15,000/- 15,000/- 2,40,000/-(40,000/-each to A-1 to A- 6- claimants) 15,55,200/- 14. For the forgoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs. 13,59,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,55,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,59,600/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,95,600/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 08.07.2021 The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 15. This Court now proceeds to consider the submission of learned counsel for the insurance company. As per the pleadings of the insurer, the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward, though it was insured as a private vehicle. On behalf of the claimants, Arjun @ Arju Kadti, father of the deceased, was examined. According to this witness, on the date of the accident, one Santosh Thakur, the driver of the offending vehicle, had invited the deceased to accompany him to Jagdalpur to watch the Dussehra fair. While they were travelling in the Scorpio, the accident occurred, resulting in the death of the deceased. The witness was subjected to cross-examination by the driver and owner. In his testimony, he stated that the deceased/Rinku and the driver/Santosh Thakur were friends, and as a matter of friendship, they were going together to the Dussehra fair at Jagdalpur. He further deposed that 4–5 other persons, who were known to the driver, were also seated in the offending vehicle. In cross-examination by the insurance company, a specific question was put to him as to whether the deceased had paid any fare for travelling in the Scorpio. The witness categorically answered that no fare was paid. On being further questioned as to how he came to know of the non-payment of fare, he stated that at the time when the deceased was leaving in the Scorpio, he himself saw that the deceased was travelling without payment of fare. 7 16. A witness was also examined on behalf of the insurance company, who deposed in support of the insurer’s plea and stated that the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward for special booking. However, in his cross-examination by the driver and owner, he admitted that no case had been registered under the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. He further admitted that in the criminal case papers, there was no entry to the effect that the vehicle was being plied for hire and reward. 17. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Tribunal, in paragraph 11 of the impugned award, held that the insurance company had not filed any document to establish that the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward or that it was engaged in special booking. Neither was any witness of the passengers allegedly travelling in the vehicle on payment of fare examined to substantiate the plea. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. This finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and is hereby affirmed. 18. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to claimants. 19. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the insurance company stands dismissed, whereas the appeal preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.ANSARI