Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Kamlakar Tiwari S/o Late Bhupat Lal, Aged About 57 Years R/o Kanhaiband
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:45290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1358 of 2018 1 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kamlakar Tiwari S/o Late Bhupat Lal, Aged About 57 Years R/o Kanhaiband, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)..........Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Premcharan Kaiwartya S/o Dwasram, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhainstara, P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chetan Yadav S/o Sukhdev Yadav, R/o Village Bhainstara, P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 04/09/2025 Order on Board 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 11.7.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 75/2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 36,49,792/- with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of claimants/respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 represented by Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate has also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that on 10/07/2017, respondent No. 2, while driving the offending vehicle Tata Magic bearing registration No. CG 11 AG 8242, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased Arvind 3 Kumar, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. It was further pleaded that the deceased, aged about 35 years, was working as an Assistant Block Education Officer and was earning Rs. 36,977/- per month, and under various heads, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 1,22,80,548/-. Respondent No. 2/driver, in his written statement, denied liability by alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself, amounting to contributory negligence, while also asserting that he held a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company. The owner of the vehicle also filed a written statement, submitting that the vehicle was insured, the driver possessed a valid and effective licence, and therefore, liability rested with the insurance company. Conversely, the appellant/insurance company, in its written statement, denied the averments of the claim petition, contending that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, without a valid permit, and that the driver was not holding a valid licence, further, it was argued that there was contributory negligence and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties. By its impugned award dated 11/07/2018, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and 4 negligent act of respondent No. 2, resulting in the death of Arvind Kumar, contributory negligence was not established and the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not necessary parties, breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was not proved and the claimant was entitled to compensation from the insurance company. The appellant, however, submits that the award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability upon the insurance company and granting excessive compensation is per se illegal, bad in law, and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the findings recorded in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the impugned award, while deciding issue No. 5, are perverse and liable to be set aside. In support of its defence, the company examined its Assistant Legal Officer, Shri Deepak Soni as well as a Clerk from the RTO, Janjgir, who categorically established that the offending vehicle, being a transport vehicle, was being plied without a valid permit and driving licence, thereby constituting a clear breach of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company from its liability. She further submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, and therefore, a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable, moreover, the owner and insurer of the 5 motorcycle were necessary parties but were not impleaded. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased solely on the basis of the post-mortem report, despite the deceased being in government service, where authentic records such as the Service Book and mark-sheets ought to have been given due weightage. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to make statutory deductions towards income tax and other permissible deductions while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, and further erred in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- under conventional heads, whereas only Rs. 40,000/- is permissible in the case of a bachelor. It is further argued that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased, and therefore, the award is on the higher side and deserves to be suitably reduced, with the proper multiplier to be applied on the basis of the age of the father and not of the deceased. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,49,792/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 6. None for respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 6 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In view of the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, resulting in the death of Arvind Kumar. The plea of contributory negligence has not been substantiated, nor has the appellant/insurance company been able to prove any fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy with respect to permit or licence, as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on cogent evidence. The contention that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties also holds no merit in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, the assessment of compensation has been made by the Tribunal in accordance with the settled principles of law, and no case of perversity, illegality, or excessiveness is made out warranting interference by this Court. 7 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed, affirming the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Cross Appeal 11. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,977/- per month i.e. Rs. 4,43,724/- per annum. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 2,21,862/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 2,21,862/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years and the respondent No. 1/claimant is1 the father of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 35,49,792/-. Further Rs. 1,00,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 36,49,792/- in favour of the father of the deceased with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,49,792/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed 8 by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 13. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 14. None for respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the same. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. 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. 18. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 19. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,977/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 10.7.2017. Hence, accepting the income of the 9 deceased Rs. 36,977/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 4,43,724/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,77,490/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 6,21,214/-. 20. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 years and the respondent No. 1/claimant is the father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 3,10,607/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 3,10,607/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 49,67,712/-. The respondent No. 1/claimant is further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X1+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. 10 Accordingly, the respondent No. 1/claimant i.e. father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 50,53,712/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 49,67,712/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 50,53,712/- 21. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 50,53,712/-. After deducting Rs. 36,49,792/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 14,03,920/-.
Decision
22. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No. 1/claimant i.e. father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 14,03,920/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to 11 the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat