Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Nirasa Bai Wd/o Late Tukaram Pal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:44715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1228 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......(Non-Applicant No.3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nirasa Bai Wd/o Late Tukaram Pal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jarvaydeeh, Police Station Bhakhara Birejhar Out Post, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.1), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhupendra Pal S/o Late Tukaram Pal R/o Village Jarvaydeeh, Police Station Bhakhara Birejhar Out Post, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh..... (Applicant No.2), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunil Pal S/o Tukaram Pal Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Mother-Nirasa Bai (Respondent No.1), R/o Village Jarvaydeeh, Police Station Bhakhara Birejhar Out Post, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh..... (Applicant No.1), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Firantin Bai Wd/o Late Piluram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jarvaydeeh, Police Station Bhakhara Birejhar Out Post, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.4), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Aashish Dhiwar S/o Pappu Dhiwar Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Near Pond, Kota Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...(Non- Applicant No.1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mamta Baghmar W/o Narad Baghmar R/o Near Ramdarbar, Kota, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh....(Non-Applicant No.2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (02/09/2025) 1. This is an appeal by the State against the award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Raipur C.G. in Claim Case No.499 of 2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.14,16,090/- with interest @ 8% in favour of the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2015 at approximately 6:00 p.m., near village Chachanpairi, Respondent No.5, Aashish Dhiwar, while driving the Tata S vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-4635, allegedly drove rashly and negligently, resulting in a collision with a motorcycle ridden by Chintamani Sahu with Tukaram Pal as pillion rider. The accident caused serious injuries to both, with Tukaram Pal dying on the spot and Chintamani Sahu succumbing to his injuries during treatment. The legal representatives of the deceased Tukaram Pal 3 subsequently filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 28,00,000/- against Respondents No.5 and 6 (driver and owner of the vehicle) and the Appellant Insurance Company. The driver and owner, in their written statement, denied negligence, asserting that the driver was operating the vehicle cautiously and that the motorcycle, carrying three persons, was driven rashly and lost control, leading to the accident. The vehicle was insured with the Appellant, who in its written statement denied liability on the grounds that Respondent No.5 did not possess a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being operated without a valid permit and fitness certificate, contrary to the insurance policy conditions. Further, the Appellant contended contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. After due enquiry, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,16,090/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization in favor of Respondents No.1 to 4 and against the Appellant Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company respectfully submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The vehicle involved in the instant case is a Light Goods Vehicle (Transport Vehicle), and Respondent No.5, the driver, held a driving license only for driving Light Motor Vehicles (Non-Transport). Under Section 14(2) of the 4 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to drive a Transport Vehicle, a license with a transport endorsement valid for at least three years is mandatory. Consequently, the vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the Appellant Assurance Company of any liability to pay compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed the deceased’s income on the higher side and consequently awarded compensation disproportionately high, which warrants reduction to an extent permissible under law. 4. No representation was made on behalf of the respondents despite due issuance of notice to them. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Though the Insurance Company has raised an objection regarding the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence held by Respondent No.5, the said objection is devoid of merit. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , 1 it has been clearly held that a person holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is entitled to drive a transport vehicle, provided the unladen weight of such vehicle does not exceed 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 5 7,500 kg, and no separate endorsement for a transport vehicle is required in such cases. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, the argument advanced by the Insurance Company regarding the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence stands rejected. 7. So far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that no material evidence has been brought on record to establish that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or any other vehicle involved. Nothing has been elucidated by the Insurance Company to substantiate this plea. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the allegation of contributory negligence remains unproved and, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Court. 8. The third ground which has been raised in respect of excess amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, no cross-appeal, cross-objection, or any separate appeal has been filed in the present matter. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the case of the claimants and awarded an appropriate amount under the heads of dependency, deductions, and multiplier. However, the amounts awarded under the heads of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 6 Court in case of National Insurance company vs. Pranay Sethi 2 . and therefore merit reconsideration in accordance with the said judgment. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. However, with regard to the components of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded under these heads is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Keeping in view the nature of the occupation of the deceased, the date of the accident, prevailing wage structure at the relevant time, cost of living, and other relevant economic indicators, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount of compensation under the following heads: Sn. 1. 2. Heads Loss of Dependency Loss of Consortium Rs.48,000 x 4 (10% enhancement in every three years) Calculation Rs.12,15,000/- 1,92,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 4) 3. Loss of Estate (10% Rs,18,000/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 enhancement in every three years) 4. Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three Rs.18,000/- years) Total amount of compensation : Rs.14,43,000/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.14,43,000/- from Rs.14,16,090/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.26,910/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (8% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. As a result, the appeal is disposed of. The award dated 17.04.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 13. The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing regarding the enhanced amount. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena