11.06.2025 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, Gurukripa Tower, 2nd v. 1
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 1 2025:CGHC:23091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 859 of 2017 Judgment reserved on : 18.03.2025 Judgment delivered on: 11.06.2025 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, Gurukripa Tower, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/Insurer versus 1 - Smt. Basan Bai Wd/o Late Nandram Khushram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Tingipur, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Domesh Kumar S/o Late Nandram Khushram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Tingipur, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunil Kumar S/o Late Nand Khushram, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Basan Bai, R/o Village Tingipur, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants No. 1 To 3 4 - Shankar Rao S/o Late Baburao Wag, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Sakri, Indira Awas, Battalion Road, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver And Owner Of Auto No. C.G.10 Y 5273 ----Respondents And MAC No. 1028 of 2017
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Basan Bai W/o Late Nadram Khushram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Tingipur Tahsil And Thana Takhatpur And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Domesh Kumar S/o Late Nadram Khushram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Tingipur Tahsil And Thana Takhatpur And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sunil Kumar S/o Late Nadram Khushram, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Basan Bai, Caste Gond, R/o Village Tingipur Tahsil And Thana Takhatpur And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.....Claimants., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants/claimants Versus 1 - Shankar Rao Vag S/o Late Babu Rao Vag, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Sakari, Indira Aawas Batalian Road Thana Chakarbhatha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh......Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C. G. 10 Y 5273. 2 - Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office Guru Kripa Tower 2nd Floor Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.....Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C. G. 10 Y 5273 --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate in MAC No. 859/2017 and Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate in MAC No.1028/2017 For Respondents: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3 in MAC No. 859/2017 and Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in MAC No. 1028/2017 ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. Since both these appeals arise of common award and claim case number, therefore, the same are heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. MAC No. 1028/2017 has been filed by the claimants/appellants on this ground that the amount is on lower side, whereas MAC No. 859/2017 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance company against the impugned award, whereby the liability to pay compensation to the claimants has been levied upon the appellant/insurance company. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 30.07.2015, the deceased Nandram was returning from Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur to his house 3 and at that time one vehicle Auto bearing registration No. CG-10-Y- 5273 (hereinafter referred to as “ the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the the deceased from his back side, as a result of which, deceased Nandram, sustained injuries on different parts of the body. He was immediately taken to Hospital, Bilaspur, Raipur and during treatment he died. Report regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station-Charismata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), based upon which Crime No. 281/2015 under Section 304 (A) of IPC was registered against the respondent No. 1/driver. Subsequently, the claim case was filed by the claimants, who are the wife and sons of the deceased, before the learned Claims Tribunal, which has been partly allowed and the claimants have been awarded Rs. 3,89,205/- and liability to pay the said amount has been fixed upon the insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 859/2017 submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has committed a gross error by giving perverse findings in respect of issue No. 3, which relates to breach of insurance policy condition, learned Tribunal did not appreciate this fact that at the time of accident offending vehicle (Auto) was not only driven by it’s owner being driver, but also vehicle was in use without having valid and effective permit. Learned Tribunal has committed a gross error of law by fastening liability upon present appellant/insurance company, however, the insurance company has proved the fact that owner has committed breach of insurance policy conditions, hence the appellant/Insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation. He reliance placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kamala Mangalal Vayani and others vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. 4 Ltd. And others.1 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC No. 1028/2017 submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 3,000/- p.m, whereas there was evidence and also pleading to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing business of grocery ought to have been assessed by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the deceased Nandram died during the course of treatment and the amount awarded towards treatment in Bilaspur Hospital is on lower side and the same liable to be suitably enhanced. The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 9 instead of 13 as per deceased’s age i.e., 50 years old in view of judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2 learned Tribunal has also committed grave error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other heads also, thus, the appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation suitably. He reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,3 and Sarla Verma (supra. 6. Learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals objected to each other’s arguments. 7. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The learned Tribunal framed issue No. 3 as under:- 1. 2010 (II) D.M.P. 433 (S.C.) 2. 2009 (6) SCC 121. 3. (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 कमांक वाद ्ቚ् नि(cid:10)ष्क्ቧ(cid:13) 3. क्या, अ(cid:10)ावेदक कमांक 01 ्ቛारा वाह(cid:10) ऑटो कमांक " ्ቚमाणि*ኘ᭖ (cid:10)हीं" सी०जी०-10/वाई 0-5273 को बीमा की शኘ᭖! के उ्ቤंघ(cid:10) में चलाया जा रहा था ? 9. Learned Tribunal found that on the date of incident, the driver possessed the motorcycle with gear and LMV non transport vehicle. Registration is exhibited as Ex. D/2 and permit is Ex. D/3 and the permit was valid from 01.08.2015 to 31.10.2015 in the name of the driver. So, it is clear from the records that the offending vehicle (Auto) was driven by the owner/driver without having valid permit, thus breached the conditions of insurance policy, despite that liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the insurance company, which is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamala Mangalal (supra), therefore, it is directed that insurance company shall first pay compensation to the claimants and thereafter would be entitled to recover the same from the driver owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No. 1. 10. As regards the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement in MAC No. 1028/2017, the learned Tribunal calculated the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing business of grocery, but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income of the deceased, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2015 and the minimum wages prevalent at that time, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and it can safely be taken as Rs. 5,969/- per month i.e., Rs. 71,628/- per annum. Learned Tribunal 6 rightly deducted 1/3rd of the amount as personal and living expenses of the deceased as he was having two dependents, however, the learned Tribunal wrongly found age of the deceased as 60 years old and applied the multiplier of 9. Though, the deceased was aged 50 years old at the time of accident, his age mentioned in the postmortem report and in naksha panchayatnama, therefore, as per guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 13 will be taken for the age group of 46-50 years instead of 9. In view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% of his annual income is to be added thereto towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal awarded very meager amount under the other heads also, it should be enhanced suitably. The claimants are entitled for spouse and parental consortium @ of Rs.40,000/- each claimant which comes to the total amount Rs. 1,20,000/-, they are also entitled for funeral expenses @ Rs. 15,000/- and for loss of estate @ Rs. 15,000/ - which comes to the total amount Rs. 30,000/-. As regards the medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,53,205/- under this head, which appears to be just and proper and based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- S.No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Income of the Rs. 3,000x12= Rs. Rs. 5,969x12= Rs. (Rs.) (Rs.) deceased 36,000/- p.a. 71,628/- p.a. 2. 25% of above to be Nil Rs. 89,535/- (25% of Rs. added towards 71,628/- = 17,907/-) 7 future prospects 3. 1/3rd deduction Rs. 24,000/- (1/3rd of Rs. Rs.59,690/- (1/3 rd of Rs. towards personal 36,000/-= Rs. 12,000/-) 89,535/- = Rs. 29,845/-) and living expenses of the deceased Multiplier 9 13 Total loss of Rs. 2,16,000/- ( Rs. Rs. 7,75,970/- (Rs. dependency For medical expenses 24,000x9) Rs. 1,53,205/- 59,690 x 13) Rs. 1,53,205/- 4. 5. 6. 7. Towards loss of Rs. 10,000 For loss of spousal consortium consortium to claimant No. 1= Rs. 40,000/- For loss of parental consortium to claimants No. 2 to 3 += Rs. 40,000/- each Total= Rs. 1,20,000/- 8. Towards funeral Rs. 10,000/- For funeral expenses= expenses and loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- For loss of estate= Rs. 15,000/- Total= Rs.30,000/- Total compensation Rs. 3,89,205/- Rs. 10,79,175/- awarded 11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. Rs. Rs. 10,79,175/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 3,89,205/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 6,89,970/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the 8 claimants by the insurance company on the principle of pay and recover. It is directed that the appellant/insurance company in MAC No. 859/2017 shall first pay the amount to the claimants and later on shall be entitled to recover the same from the driver/ owner i.e. respondent No. 4 in MAC No. 859/2017 and respondent No. 1 in MAC No. 1028/2017. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants i.e., MAC No. 1028/2017 and appeal filed by the insurance company in MAC No. 859/2017 are partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL