Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh v. 1
Case Details
NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:48843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1266 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager The S B I General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through - Its Senior Executive - Litigation And T. P. ( West ) S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Above S B I Main Branch New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal ( M. P. ) - 462003, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Chandarbati Sethiya W/o Late Mansai Aged About 48 Years Residing At Village - Kadampara Koleng, Police Station Darbha, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Sethiya s/o Late Mansai, Aged About 28 Years Residing At Village - Kadampara Koleng, Police Station Darbha, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - Vikky Markam S/o Shri Kamaram Maekam Aged About 58 Years R/o Type 3, Q. No. 169 / G, Kirndul, Police Station - Kirndul, District - South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2025 2 1. The appellant/ Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Claim Case No. 147 of 2018 dated 28.3.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.14,36,675/- with interest @9% per annum on account of death of Mansai Sethiya. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 6.12.2017 at about 2:30 pm, Mansai Shetiya was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.17C 8572 alongwith his wife and children from Village Koleng to Raikoat and when he reached near Tokapal, the driver of Maruti Car bearing registration No.C.G.18K 1995 by driving rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Resultantly, late Mansai sustained serious injuries over his hand, leg and head. He was shifted at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and succumbed to death on 8.4.2018. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as a postmaster in the postal department, earning Rs.14,000/- per month and that they were dependent upon him. They also pleaded that at the time of death, the age of the deceased was 55 years. They claimed a total sum of Rs.10,70,000/- on various heads. Respondent No.1, the driver and owner of the vehicle, filed a reply and denying the contents of the claim application. The Insurance Company filed a reply, specifically pleaded that the death of the deceased was not the result of the accident which occurred on 6.12.2017 as late Mansai died on 8.4.2018 after four months. It is also pleaded that the deceased was discharged from the hospital. The Insurance Company took the plea of breach of policy. 3 The parties led evidence and thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed an award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that the motorcycle was being driven in breach of policy as 4-5 members were travelling on the fateful day on it. She would further contend that the accident occurred on 6.12.2017, whereas the deceased Mansai died on 8.4.2018. She would submit that late Mansai was discharged from the hospital on 9.1.2018 and thus, there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by late Mansai and his death. She would argue that this very ground was raised before the learned Tribunal but same has not been considered properly. She would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the Insurance Company did not take a plea before the learned Tribunal that more than three members were travelling on the motorcycle on the fateful date and that this plea is being raised for the first time before this Court. He would further argue that in the accident which occurred on 6.12.2017, late Mansai Sethiya sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. He would contend that though the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 9.1.2018 but the Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence to demonstrate that between 9.1.2017 and 8.4.2018, he sustained injuries on account of any other accident. He would further submit that though the deceased was discharged from the hospital but he remained bedridden and his physical condition was not good. He would contend 4 that this issue was raised by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and same has been discussed in paragraph 13. He would submit that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may be dismissed. He would contend that the claimants have filed a cross-appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of compensation. He would clearly submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award but the compensation for loss of consortium has not been granted to the only son of the deceased i.e. respondent No.2. He would pray to award loss of consortium to the son of the deceased with an additional sum of 20% according to 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, late Mansai Sethiya sustained injuries on account of the accident occurred on 6.12.2017. He was immediately hospitalized and discharged from hospital on 9.1.2018. The injuries sustained by the deceased were grievous in nature and this fact is evident from perusal of Exhibits - A/4, A/5, A/9, A/10 and A/12. The Insurance Company has not adduced evidence to rebut those documents. 7. A perusal of the medical documents would show that after discharge from the hospital, the condition of the deceased was not good and as pleaded in the claim application and he remained bedridden till his death. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellant that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased and his death appears to be incorrect. The findings recorded 5 by the learned Tribunal, medical documents placed on record and the evidence of the claimants witnesses clearly establish that the death of the deceased was a result of the injuries sustained by him. The claim application was filed by the widow and child of the deceased. On the date of accident, the deceased, his wife and son were travelling on the motorcycle. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellant that on the fateful date, 3-4 members were travelling in breach of policy on the motorcycle appears to be incorrect. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, no ground is made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 9. Now coming to the cross-objection filed by the claimants. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.13,054/- and has applied multiplier of 11 considering the age of the deceased between 51 and 55 years. The deduction of 1/3rd is appropriate looking to the number of dependents. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded future prospects, loss of consortium to the wife, loss of estate and funeral expenses according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). The learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to the only son i.e. claimant No.2. 10. Considering the above-aspect of the matter, the appeal preferred by the claimants is hereby partly allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium with an additional 6 amount of 20% as per the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.48,000/- with interest @9% from the date of application till its realization in addition to the amount already awarded by the Insurance Company. 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 Deduction Rs. 13,054 x 12 = Rs. 1,56,648/- Rs. 13,054 x 12 = Rs. 1,56,648/- 1/3rd 52,216 = 1,04,432/-) (1,56,648 – 1/3rd 52,216 = 1,04,432/-) (1,56,648 – 3. Multiplier (x) 11 = Rs. 11,48,752/- (x) 11 = Rs. 11,48,752/- (1,04,432 x 11) (1,04,432 x 11) 4. Future Prospect 15% of Rs.11,48,752/- 15% of Rs.11,48,752/- (Rs.1,72,313/-) (Rs.1,72,313/-) 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 claimant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Consortium(for claimant No.2) -- Rs. 40,000/- Rs.48,000/- 9. Medical Expenses Rs.45,610/- Rs.45,610/- TOTAL Rs.14,36,675/- Rs. 14,84,675/-
Decision
12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.14,36,675/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to 7 Rs. 14,84,675/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,36,675/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.48,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge