Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:48961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1069 of 2019 1 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch No. 1, Bhutani Complex, Ge Road, Power House Bhilai, Teshil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vandana Pathak W/o Late Kripashankar Pathak Aged About 45 Years R/o Kohka, Hosingh Board, C.H.O. 381, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Prabhavati Pathak W/o Late Sudarshan Pathak Aged About 75 Years R/o Kohka, Hosingh Board, C.H.O. 381, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhisekh Pathak S/o Late Kripashankar Pathak Aged About 19 Years R/o Kohka, Hosingh Board, C.H.O. 381, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Sushmita Pathak D/o Late Kripashanakar Pathak Aged About 16 Years R/o Kohka, Hosingh Board, C.H.O. 381, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Narayan Singh Dahare S/o Late Ramdas Dahare Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khapri, Post Office Latabod, Thana- Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ashwani Dewani S/o Rajkumar Dewani Aged About 32 Years R/o Ews - 531, 2 Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Thana- Supela Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents No.1 to 4 : : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. The appellant/ Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg in Claim Case No. 10 of 2017 dated 18.2.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.7,56,400/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Kripashankar Pathak. 2. The facts of the present case are that on the fateful day i.e. 15.11.2016, Kripashankar Pathak was travelling from Vaishali Nagar to Chawni on his Honda Activa bearing registration No.C.G. 07 AZ 2873, near SBI ATM, Sundarnagar, a Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04 J 7243 dashed the Activa, consequently, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants, who are wife, mother and children of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act interalia on the ground that at the time of death, the age of the deceased was 50 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation amounting to Rs.26,30,000/-. The Insurance Company filed a reply and pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. Learned 3 Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and the witness of Insurance Company has proved this fact but the learned Tribunal fastened the liability with the Insurance Company. He would pray to set aside the award. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the Insurance Company failed to examine RTO officials to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit. He would contend that the witness J. Ekka has admitted the fact that no enquiry was made with the RTO office with regard to permit. He would contend that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 to 4, who are mother and children of the deceased. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In reply to the claim application, the Insurance Company took a plea that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit but this fact was not established by leading clinching evidence. The witness, Mr. J. Ekka, examined by the Insurance Company admitted this fact that no enquiry was made with the RTO office regarding the permit. 4 The pleading in this regard was made in the reply only on the ground that the permit was not seized by the police. Learned Tribunal considered this ground and rejected it in para 12 of the award. 7. Considering the fact that the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove the fact that the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit, I do not find any good ground to interfere with such findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 9. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned award but failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to mother and children of the deceased. 10. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimants No.2 to 4 would be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with an additional amount of 20%. 11. Considering the above-stated facts, the compensation is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. 1. 2. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Future Prospect 10% (7,200/-) 10% (7,200/-) (72,000 + 7,200 = 79,200/- (72,000 + 7,200 = 79,200/- 3. Deduction 1/3rd (79,200 – 26,400 = 52,800/-) 1/3rd (79,200 – 26,400 = 52,800/-) 5 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = Rs. 6,86,400/- (x) 13 = Rs. 6,86,400/- (52,800 x 13) (52,800 x 13) 5. 6. 7. 8. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Loss of consortium(for appellants No. 2 to 4) - - Rs. 1,44,000/- (48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000/-) TOTAL Rs.7,56,400/- Rs. 9,00,400/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,00,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,56,400/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,44,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, the cross-appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge