Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:35592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 752 of 2017 The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Paras Bhavan Station Road Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - Smt. Jaishri Sahu W/o Late Kishor Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Singhola, Thana Lalbag District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Ragini D/o Late Kishor Sahu, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through
Legal Reasoning
Guardian Mother Smt. Jaishri Sahu W/o Late Kishor Sahu, R/o Village Singhola, Thana Lalbag District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pramod Kumar S/o Late Kishor Sahu, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Jaishri Sahu W/o Late Kishor Sahu, R/o Village Singhola, Thana Lalbag District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gaukaran Sahu S/o Late Bahur Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Singhola, Thana Lalbag District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gomti Bai W/o Gaukaran Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Singhola, Thana Lalbag District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Rajkumar Kanvar S/o Late Vishramm Kanvar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Gidhva Bhanvar, Present Address Markam Tola, Thana Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - M/s Das Processores Through Dushyant Das S/o Late Narendra Das, Age 47 Years, R/o 44, Vardhman Nagar Jain School Road Rajnandgaon, Thana Kotwali District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6 : None For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 23.07.2025 Judgment on Board 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 15.02.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.04/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 24.09.2015, at about 06:40 PM, Kishore Sahu (since deceased) was returning to his house, Village Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, after completing his work at a hotel. He was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08/H/2612. When he reached near the turning of Jain School, a JCB vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08/P/5366 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), coming from the opposite direction, collided with his motorcycle, due to which, he fell down. He was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries. His motorcycle was also damaged in the said accident. 3 3. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Kishore Sahu, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹38,52,000/- under various heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, filed their written statements, denying the pleadings made in the claim petition. They contended that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, and hence, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company also filed its written statement, denying the contents of the claim petition. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was not driven by non-applicant No. 1 and that the person driving the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company also contended that it was a case of head-on collision, implying contributory negligence, and that there was non-joinder of a necessary party, as the insurer of the motorcycle had not been made a party. Therefore, the Insurance Company argued it was not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹15,21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 4 the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in reckoning the monthly income of the deceased as ₹9,000/- (i.e., ₹1,08,000/- per annum), which ought to have been reduced suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal awarded an excessive amount of compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal should be suitably reduced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the owner/respondent No. 7 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after duly appreciating the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned award, which does not warrant any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. In paragraphs 21 to 24 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was ₹9,000/- per month from his work at Hotel Pataal Bhairavi, Rajnandgaon. To establish this, the claimants examined Sachin Singh (AW-2), the owner of the said hotel. Thus, the Tribunal did not commit any 5 illegality in reckoning the monthly income of the deceased as ₹9,000/-. 11. In paragraph 27 of the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, ₹50,000/- towards loss of estate, and ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled to ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. Furthermore, a 10% enhancement every three years is also to be given with respect to these conventional heads. 12. In light of the above, the claimants are entitled to ₹2,76,000/- under the conventional heads. Therefore, the award of ₹2,25,000/- by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be justified. 13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and upon careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has rendered a well-reasoned and justified finding based on the evidence on record. 14. Considering the nature of injuries and the circumstances, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded ₹15,21,000/- as just and reasonable compensation. It is also an established fact that 6 the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident. Thus, the Claims Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. 15. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge