Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:41:01 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 03.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 14.08.2025 MAC No. 1052 of 2018 Manager Royal Sudaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vishranti Melaram Towers No. 2/319, Rajeevgandhi Salai ( O M R ) Karapakka Chennai At Present - 1st Floor , Raj Chamber , Beside Over Bridge Mova Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Alto K - Ten, C G- 04 K R 7555) ... Appellant versus 1 - Gopal Rathi S/o Bhojraj Rathi Aged About 42 Years R/o Gurur, Tahsil And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Omprakash Rathi S/o Bhojraj Rathi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gurur Tahsil And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Balod (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case 2 No.61/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant and fastened the liability to satisfy the compensation upon the non-applicants therein. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 19.10.2014 at about 11:30 PM, the claimant-Gopal Rathi along with non- applicant No.1/respondent No.2 was going from Dhamtari to Gurur in his Maruti Alto K10 bearing registration No.CG-04-KR- 7555 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), when he reached near Village Purur, Police Station Gurur, near petrol pump, while avoiding a truck coming from the opposite direction, lost control over the offending vehicle and collided with a tree on the roadside. As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and left arm. Initially, he was treated at Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, and later referred to Chandak Nursing Home, Nagpur, where he remained admitted for 15 days and continued treatment for about 3 months. The claimant was also underwent regular follow-up treatment at Chandak Nursing Home, Raipur. 3. The claimant has filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that due to the injuries suffered in the said accident, the claimant has sustained permanent disability, rendering him incapable of performing daily activities. Consequently, he was compelled to shut down his business i.e. Veggie Cafe Hotel and Restaurant in Dhamtari, from which, he 3 used to generate an income of Rs.2,000/- per day, thereby affecting his livelihood and family maintenance. The claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.14,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum under various heads. 4. Non-applicant No.1/respondent No.2 has filed his written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal while admitting ownership and insurance coverage of the offending vehicle, has denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It is submitted that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly exaggerated, arbitrary, and irrational. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2 and he had possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the incident, therefore, the liability, if any would be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed its separate written statement and disputed the very occurrence of the accident. It is contended that no accident occurred on the said date involving the claimant and he had not sustained any injury leading to permanent disability. It is also averred that the accident, if any, was not due to the fault of non-applicant No.1 and that the actual cause of accident was a Truck, which has not been made a party. Further, it was pleaded that since the claimant and non-applicant No.1 are real brothers, the claimant does not fall under the definition of a “third party”, and also that the driver was not holding 4 a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, thereby violating the policy terms. Consequently, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition and sought permission to contest the case under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’). 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal while relying upon the various case laws, awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,58,355/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts, circumstances, and evidence available on record, and is thus bad in law. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident, and the relationship between the claimant/respondent No.1 and the owner-driver/respondent No.2, being real brothers, was deliberately suppressed before the Claims Tribunal. There exists clear collusion between respondent Nos.1 and 2 with the sole intention of securing unwarranted and unlawful compensation, thereby defeating the very object of the M.V. Act. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the 5 evidence on record in its correct perspective and erred in law by passing the impugned award. The Claims Tribunal did not conduct a proper inquiry as contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The real cause of action, if any, lies against the driver of the truck allegedly coming from the opposite direction, who has neither been identified nor impleaded. Further, the claimant, being the brother of the registered owner, does not fall within the definition of a 'third party', thereby disentitling him from seeking compensation under the statutory scheme of insurance. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is highly excessive and unjustified. The Claims Tribunal erred in accepting photocopies of Income Tax Returns (ITR) as conclusive proof of income without proper verification or corroboration. The assessment of monthly income and the consequent multiplier applied are not supported by any cogent or reliable material. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph-10 of the impugned award are contradictory, speculative, and legally unsustainable. It is lastly contended that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded just and proper compensation based on credible evidence, and the amount awarded is thus liable to be reduced significantly. 8. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 6 731 and Malarvizhi and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2020) 4 SCC 228, to buttress his submissions. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Perusal of paragraphs 9 to 14 of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident and that the driver possessed a valid licence, without any violation of policy terms being proved by the insurer. The Claims Tribunal has also accepted the claimant’s income solely on the basis of photocopies of Income Tax Returns, despite absence of any documentary proof of the Restaurant business or daily income. Though the claimant alleged 40% disability, the Claims Tribunal assessed the actual functional disability at 20% and calculated loss of income accordingly by applying a multiplier of 14. The Claims Tribunal further allowed medical expenses amounting to Rs.3,14,647/- based on medical bills and receipts produced by the claimant and awarded additional amounts under various heads like pain and suffering, loss of life expectancy, special diet, and attendant charges, culminating in a total award of Rs.11,58,355/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization holding both non-applicants 7 jointly and severally liable for payment of amount of compensation. 11. Having carefully examined the pleadings, evidence on record, and the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraphs 9 to 14 of the impugned award, this Court does not find any substance in the grounds urged by the appellant/Insurance Company to warrant interference in the well- reasoned award. 12. It is evident that the Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the documents on record to conclude that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company under a valid package policy on the date of the accident. Further, the driver of the said vehicle was also holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ and the Insurance Company failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove violation of the terms and conditions of the policy or to establish that the claimant did not fall within the ambit of a “third party” under the Motor Vehicles Act. In absence of any such evidence, the Claims Tribunal rightly rejected the insurer’s defence as “not proved.” Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has fairly and reasonably assessed the claimant’s annual income based on Income Tax Returns produced by him, which remained unchallenged during trial. While the claimant alleged 40% permanent disability in his right leg, the Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach by restricting the loss of 8 earning capacity to 20%, considering the nature of the claimant’s occupation and potential to continue business through hired assistance. The multiplier of 14 was also appropriate given the claimant’s age. The Claims Tribunal has also meticulously examined the medical bills, receipts, and prescriptions produced by the claimant and allowed actual medical expenses to the extent of Rs.3,14,647/-, which is duly supported by evidence. Reasonable amounts have also been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special diet, and attendant charges. 13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matters of Balakrishnan (supra) and Malarvizhi (supra), do not advance the case of the appellant/Insurance Company, as the facts and legal issues therein are clearly distinguishable from those in the present matter. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned award. The findings of the Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified in any manner. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 9 16. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent for necessary information and compliance. Yogesh Sd/-/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge