Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.11 18:20:24 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:43850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Jayprakash Yadav (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order MAC No. 360 of 2017 Dated 04-10-2024. 1.1 - Chandrika Bai W/o Jayprakash Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Katra, Tahsil And Police Station- Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. 1.2 - Aman Yadav S/o Jayprakash Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Chandrika Bai W/o Jayprakash Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Katra, Tahsil And Police Station- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 1.3 - Piyush Yadav S/o Jayprakash Yadav Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Chandrika Bai W/o Jayprakash Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Katra, Tahsil And Police Station- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. versus ... Appellants 1 - Dinesh Kumar Rathore S/o Sitaram Rathore, Aged About 42 Years R/o Budgahan, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), at Present R/o Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s D. C. Construction, Through The Partner M.I.G.-17, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Through The Branch Manager, Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
14. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection, this Court finds that the pivotal issue arising for adjudication is whether the death of the injured claimant, Jayprakash Yadav, which occurred on 11.12.2019, had a proximate causal nexus with the grievous burn injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 21.01.2013. The Claims Tribunal, while awarding compensation on 22.11.2016, had assessed only the medical expenses, pain and suffering, and a nominal sum towards loss of income, without examining the long- term effect of 70% permanent disability suffered by the claimant. During pendency of the appeal, the claimant unfortunately expired, and his legal heirs have stepped into his shoes to prosecute the 8 proceedings. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena (Dead) represented through LRs, (supra) has categorically held that the right of the legal representatives to continue a pending claim petition or appeal survives even after the death of the injured claimant, and they are entitled to compensation on account of loss of estate and other conventional heads. However, the Court further clarified that in order to convert an injury claim into a fatal accident claim, the claimants must establish by reliable medical evidence that the death was attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident, by observing as under :- “5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon, (2022) 13 SCC 494, to impress upon us that despite the death of the injured, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim since the property under the Act would have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition and would include the estate left behind by the deceased. It was held that if the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to prohibit the legal representatives to pursue claims for loss of a property, akin to estate of the injured, if the injured dies subsequently. We see, absolutely no reason to differ from the declaration of law and the insurer also raises 9 no objection on the same. We would consider the enhancement sought by the original applicant, which if granted before her death would have accrued to her estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate; caused by reason of the accident, which the legal heirs are entitled to succeed to.” 16. Likewise, in Kahlon (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that proof of proximate cause of death is essential, and mere assertions of continuous medical treatment are not sufficient in absence of credible medical material linking the accident injuries with the eventual death. The same principle was earlier echoed in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it was observed that assessment of compensation must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” and determination of disability or death must rest upon sound medical evidence. 17. In the present case, it is true that the claimant had suffered 70% burn injuries, and there are hospital records evidencing his prolonged treatment. However, the claimants have not produced any medical opinion or supporting material to show that the cause of death on 11.12.2019 was a direct result of the burn injuries sustained in the accident. In absence of such material, this Court cannot, at this stage, record a definitive finding that the death was a consequence of the accident. At the same time, it would also not be just and proper to deprive the legal heirs of an opportunity to adduce such evidence. 18. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the ends of justice 10 would be met if the matter is remanded to the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the limited purpose of recording additional evidence on the specific issue: whether the deceased Jayprakash Yadav died due to the complications arising from the 70% burn injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 21.01.2013. Both sides shall be afforded adequate opportunity to produce oral and documentary medical evidence, including hospital records, treatment papers, and expert medical opinion. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 22.11.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Claims Tribunal for reconsideration of the claim petition on merits. The learned Tribunal shall afford due and proper opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, oral as well as documentary, and thereafter decide the claim petition afresh strictly in accordance with law. 20. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) on 25.09.2025 at 11:00 A.M. The learned Claims Tribunal is expected to dispose of the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from 25.09.2025, without 11 granting unnecessary adjournments, keeping in view that the matter pertains to compensation arising out of a motor vehicle accident, which by its very nature requires expeditious adjudication in terms of the spirit underlying Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 21. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with the copy of this judgment for necessary action and compliance. No order as to costs. Judge Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Arguments
: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 14.08.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.11.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.651/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant/injured- Jayprakash Yadav. 2. It is an admitted position that the injured/claimant, namely Jayprakash Yadav, has expired during the pendency of the appeal, and his legal representatives have been brought on record to prosecute and contest the claim. 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the injured claimant, Jayprakash Yadav was employed as a Helper in vehicle bearing registration No.CG-10C-7317 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) and was a regular salaried employee under non- applicant No.2, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.100/- per day as allowance. On 21.01.2013, while travelling from Chotia to Masturi Bilaspur Plant in the said vehicle, non- 3 applicant No.1, who was driving the vehicle, inserted a screwdriver in the battery instead of the key to start the vehicle and left it as such and due to alleged careless handling and negligent driving, electric current began to flow, due to which the offending vehicle caught fire. The injured-claimant sustained severe burn injuries in the incident and a written report was lodged at the concerned Police Station on 22.01.2013. 4. It was the case of the claimant that about 90% of his body was burnt, and he had to incur huge expenses on treatment. Initially, he was admitted at the Primary Health Centre and thereafter at Shriram Care Hospital, where he remained under treatment from 22.01.2013 to 02.03.2013, spending about Rs.4,50,000/-. He further claimed to have continued treatment thereafter, incurring additional expenditure of about Rs.10,00,000/-. Alleging permanent disfigurement of his face and disability, the injured- claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- on several heads. 5. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 have filed their their joint reply and admitted that the injured-claimant was working under non- applicant No.2 for the past one and a half years, but stated that he was paid Rs.4,200/- per month along with Rs.70/- per day allowance. They further admitted that the he was travelling in the said vehicle as an essential worker. However, they denied negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1 and contended that the claim was exaggerated. They also stated that the vehicle was 4 insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, which had already paid Rs.9,00,000/- towards damage to the vehicle. 6. Non-applicant No.3 (Insurance Company) in its reply denied the occurrence of the accident as pleaded, and stated that no criminal case was registered against the driver. It was contended that since the present claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’), it was the duty of the claimant to establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, which was not proved. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal held that the injured-claimant remained admitted in Shriram Care Hospital for 33 days (22.01.2013 to 23.02.2013) and incurred medical expenditure of Rs.5,14,054/-. In addition, Rs.50,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.6,930/- towards loss of income, assessing total compensation at Rs.5,70,984/- and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Jayprakash Yadav, working as a Helper in the offending vehicle, suffered 90% burn injuries on 21.01.2013 due to rash and negligent act of the driver. He remained hospitalized at Shri Ram Care Hospital, Bilaspur, and was certified to have 70% permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,70,984/- towards 5 medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income, without appreciating the extent of disability and continuous treatment. During pendency of this appeal, Jayprakash Yadav expired on 11.12.2019, and his legal heirs were substituted to pursue the claim. It is contended that his death was a direct result of the accident; therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, medical expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering. In the alternative, if the death is not found attributable to the accident, the legal heirs are at least entitled to enhanced compensation for loss of estate including income loss up to his death, medical expenditure, and attendant charges. Accordingly, the award is inadequate and deserves enhancement. 9. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Meena (Dead) represented through LRs v. Prayagraj and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1433, Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (Deceased) through his Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another, (2022) 13 SCC 494, Hukum Lal Sahu v. Rajesh Sahu and others, 2011 SCC OnLine Chh 524, Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel since Decd. Through Heir...v. Joseph Francis Mewan, 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 13400, Venkatachalam Chetti v. Ramaswamy Servai (Dead) and others, AIR 1932 Mad 73 (FB) and the judgment rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana 6 in the matter of Krishan Lal Dutta through his Legal Representatives v. Guddu Yadav and others, FAO No.2195/2005 decided on 28.02.2019, to buttress his submissions. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is well merited and does not call for any interference. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Insurance Company questioned the maintainability of the appeal contending that the legal heirs of the deceased-injured cannot prosecute the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 12. In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the injured claimant, who had filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, died during the pendency of the proceedings. The injured claimant (now deceased) had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.01.2013, wherein he suffered 70% burn injuries, which were of permanent nature. The Claims Tribunal passed the award on 22.11.2016. Thereafter, the appeal was filed by the injured himself on 02.03.2017. Subsequently, on 11.12.2019, the claimant expired. The issue that now arises for consideration before this Court is whether the death of the injured was a consequence of the injuries sustained by him 7 in the said accident. After his demise, the legal heirs are prosecuting the present appeal on the ground that the Jayprakash Yadav died due to the injuries sustained in the accident dated 21.01.2013. It is contended that since the date of accident, the deceased was under continuous medical treatment. 13. In order to decide this issue, this Court is fortified by the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the point under consideration. The principle consistently laid down is that unless the death of the injured is shown to have direct and proximate nexus with the injuries sustained in the accident, the claim cannot be converted into one for compensation under “fatal accident” category.