Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:32110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1355 of 2018 1 - Shila Gupta W/o Late Pratosh Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o C/o Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Village Dhondha, Post Revti, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)...........Appellant/non-Claimant No. 5, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ananya Gupta Aged About 1 Years (Minor) Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Shila Gupta, R/o C/o Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Village Dhondha, Post Revti, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)...........Appellant/non-Claimant No. 6, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - United India Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Branchy Manager, Branch Officer Ambikapur, Bramha Road, Near Hotel Kumkum, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle)..........Respondent/non-Applicant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Irshad Ansari, S/o Jalil Ansari, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Badwar, P.S. Ramkola, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle)..........Respondent/non-Applicant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahesh Ram, S/o Manraj, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Narola, 2 Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Legal Heirs Of Deceased.)..........Respondent/non-Applicant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhavesh Ram, S/o Manraj, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Narola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Legal Heirs Of Deceased.)..........Respondent/non-Applicant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Patiram Gupta, S/o Triveni Sao, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)..........Claimant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Lilawati, W/o Patiram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)..........Claimant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1602 of 2017 1 - Patiram Gupta S/o Triveni Sao, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Lilawati, W/o Patiram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Officer Ambikapur, Bramha Road, Near Hotel 3 Kumkum, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Offending Vehicle, Chhattisgarh 2 - Irshad Ansari, S/o Jalil Ansari, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Badwar, Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahesh Ram, S/o Manraj, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Narola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Legal Heirs Of Vehicle Owner ., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhavesh Ram, S/o Manraj, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Narola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Legal Heirs Of Vehicle Owner ., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shila Gupta, D/o Laxmi Gupta, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhondha, Tahsil Pratappur, Present Resident Of Jhumar Para, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ananya Gupta, D/o Pratosh Gupta, Aged About 1 Year And 06 Months Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Shila Gupta, Respondent No. 5, R/o Village Dhondha, Tahsil Pratappur, Present Resident Of Jhumar Para, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants/claimants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashwani Shukla and Mr. V. K. For Respective Respondents : Ms. Prerana Agrawal, Advocate on Pandey, Advocates behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate , Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate, 4 Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate, Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. Since the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are hereby clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. This is an appeal by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.54/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. 3. The brief facts of the case are that On 31.08.2013, Pintu Gupta, also known as Pratosh Gupta, was riding his Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number CG 15 CW 3119, carrying another person on the rear seat, traveling from village Govindpur towards village Badwar. While proceeding towards Bonga River bridge, the Irsad Ansari (Driver), driving a TVS motorcycle bearing registration number CG 15 D 7674, was riding the vehicle at a high speed and in a negligent and careless manner. Irsad Ansari’s reckless driving caused him to collide with Pintu Gupta’s 5 motorcycle, resulting in a serious accident. As a consequence, Pintu Gupta sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 02.09.2015. A First Information Report (FIR) regarding the incident was lodged by Patiram Gupta against Irsad Ansari, the driver of the TVS motorcycle CG 15 D 7674, at Police Station Ramkola under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hence these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants respectfully submits that the learned Tribunal has not adequately granted the compensation payable in the present case. It is further submitted that although the deceased was present at the time of the accident, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by Respondent No. 2, the driver of the offending vehicle, as is evident from the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and other evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be enhanced. 5. The counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company in the instant case has not received any premium covering the risk of the owner. Therefore, in the absence of receipt of such premium, the Claims Tribunal erred in fastened the liability upon the present appellant. Liability of the Insurance Company can only be fastened insofar as the policy has been issued and the premium for covering the owner’s risk has been received. The learned counsel refers to the insurance 6 policy produced before the Tribunal and the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company’s officer to substantiate this submission. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the policy in question is a package policy, which is not disputed by either party. The policy clearly mentions the limits of liability, covering death or bodily injury arising out of any one accident, as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the deceased was himself the owner and driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident, and the compensation awarded is a modest amount of 1,00,000/- only. ₹ Therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants are sans of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant interference at this stage. The issue of quantum is left open to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with the principles laid down in Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, 1 . Accordingly, no interference is called for by this Court on this aspect. 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 7 8.
Decision
In view of the foregoing, the appeals are hereby disposed of with the observation that the claimants are entitled to get compensation only to the extent of 1,00,000/- ₹ . No enhancement of further compensation is warranted. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena