Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Bihari Lal Jangade S/o Late Salaru Aged About 60 Years Residence At
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:35930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1538 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch No. 01 Bhutani Complex G.E. Road Power House Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Insurance Co.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bihari Lal Jangade S/o Late Salaru Aged About 60 Years Residence At Villge Kotmisonar P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sukhmani Bai W/o Bihari Lal Jangade Aged About 57 Years Residence At Villge Kotmisonar P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Shilpa Jangade Wd/o Late Satyendra Kumar Jangade Aged About 20 Years Residence At Villge Kotmisonar P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 4 - Suryanarayan Jangade S/o Biharilal Jangade Aged About 18 Years Residence At Villge Kotmisonar P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Hakimuddin Khan @ Hakim S/o Ishque Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And P.S. Surav District- Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Present Address Bhawani Transport Transport Nagar Parsada P.S. Chakarbhata District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....(Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Harjinder Kaur Saini W/o Indrapal Singh Saini R/o Saini Meghdut Transport (Road Lines) Plot No.36/12-14 T.P. Nagar Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
make the Insurance Company liable? This Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra), has noticed the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was 9 driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. In the present case, the respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle DIL-5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, the respondent No. 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company in the Written Statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. The respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to 10 drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending Truck was not enough for the respondent No.1 to make the Insurance Company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The Insurance Company would become liable only after such 11 foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.” 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 (MAC No. 1551/2018) opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the driver and owner of the vehicle were ex parte as such the liability was fastened upon the insurance company to show that the vehicle was being run without valid and effective driving license, which the insurance company could not prove. 7. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the appellant/insurance company (MAC No. 1538/2018 and MAC No. 1551/2018) are liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 496/2021 8. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant is the insurance company of the vehicle with registration No. C.G.-07/AX/7600, while respondents No. 1 to 7 are the claimants and co-claimants, and respondents No. 8 and 9 are the driver and owner of the vehicle, respectively, at the time of the accident. According to the 12 claim petition, the claimants, consisting of the widow, mother, sister and children of the deceased, claim compensation for the death of Baldev Prasad, who died in a road accident on 03.01.2016. The deceased was riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle with his friend when the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No. 8 in a rash and negligent manner, collided head- on with the motorcycle from the opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell under the wheels of the truck, sustaining severe injuries, and later died during treatment. A criminal case was filed against respondent No. 8, and a charge sheet was submitted in the concerned court. After being served with notices, the appellant insurance company entered the proceedings and contested the claim, arguing that the vehicle was being operated in violation of the insurance policy, making them not liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal has framed five issues based on the pleadings and evidence provided by both parties. After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal, on 23.08.2018, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,36,340/- and held the appellant insurance company liable to pay. 9. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,121/- per month i.e. Rs. 97,452/- per annum. After deduction of 1/5 of the income i.e. Rs. 19,490/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 77,962/-. After adding 40% towards future 13 prospects i.e. Rs. 31,185/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,09,147/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years and the respondents No. 1 to 7 herein are the wifes, children, sister and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 17,46,340/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 18,36,340/- in favour of the wifes, children, sister and mother of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,36,340/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be reduced in accordance with law. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th income instead of 1/4th income. Hence, deduction would be 1/4th. Hence, this appeal. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7 has filed cross appeal and submits that the claims Tribunal has 14 awarded a sum of Rs. 18,36,340/- 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. 12. None for respondent Nos. 8 & 9 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,121/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 03.01.2016. Hence, accepting 15 the income of the deceased Rs. 8,121/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 97,452/- 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. 38,981/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,36,433/-. 17. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 years and respondents No. 1 to 7 herein are the wifes, children, sister and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 34,108/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,02,325/-. 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. 16,37,200/-. The claimants are 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. (40,000/- X6+10%+10%-40,000 already given) each (with increase of 10% 16 in every three years) i.e. Rs. 2,48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 7 herein are the wifes, children, sister and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 19,21,200/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 16,37,200/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 2,48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%-40,000 already given). 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. 19,21,200/- 18. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 19,21,200/-. After deducting Rs. 18,36,340/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 84,860/-.
Arguments
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. MAC No. 496 of 2021 1 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office B-1 Taha Complex Vyapar Vihar Road, Opposite Pridarshaniya Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Through T.P. Hub Incharge, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Division Office Vyapar Vihar Road Above Canara Bank Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 Versus ---Appellant(s) 1 - Smt. Sarita Joshi Wd/o. Late Baldev Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Miss Anjali Joshi D/o Late Baldev Prasad Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sarita Joshi (Mother), R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Miss Tamanna Joshi D/o Late Baldev Prasad Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sarita Joshi (Mother), R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Miss Smriti Joshi D/o Late Baldev Prasad Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sarita Joshi (Mother), R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Vimla Joshi Wd/o. Late Baldev Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District 4 Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Indu Kumari D/o. Late Ramratan Joshi Aged About 18 Years R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ahilya Bai Wd/o. Late Ramratan Joshi Aged About 60 Years R/o. Vidyadih Nagar Out Post Pachpedi P.S. And Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Hakimuddin Khan @ Hakim S/o Ishaque Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And P.S. Surav District Allahabad (U.P.) Present Address Bhawani Transport Transport Nagar Parsada P.S. Chakarbhata District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Harjinder Kaur Saini W/o (Wrongly Mentioned As D/o.) Indrapal Singh Saini Through Saini Meghdut Road Lines/ Transport Plot No. 36/13-14 T.P. Nagar Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 7 : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 8 to 9 : None. Advocate. 5 MAC No. 1551 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch No.01 Bhutani Complex G E Road Power House Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh., (Insurance Co.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Shilpa Jangade Wd/o Late Satyendra Jangade Aged About 22 Years R/o Post Tikari Police Station Masturi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bihari Lal Jangade S/o Late Salaru Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kotmisonar Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. .....(Co- Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sukhmani Bai W/o Bihari Lal Jangade Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kotmisonar Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. .....(Co- Claimants), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hakimuddin Khan @ Hakim S/o Ishaque Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Police Station Surav District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh , Present Address Bhawani Transport Nagar Parsada Police Station Chakarbhata District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............Driver, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 5 - Smt. Harjinder Kaur Saini W/o Indrapal Singh Saini R/o Saini Meghdut Transport (Road Lines) Plot No. 36/12-14 T P Nagar Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh...............Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 & 5 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 2 to : Ms. Neha Khandekar, Advocate on 4 behalf of Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. The present are an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 24.03.2018 passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 195/2016 (“Bihari lal Jangade & Ors. vs. Hakimuddin Khan @ Hakim & Ors.”) and Claim Case No. 217/2016 (“Smt. Shilpa Jangade & Ors. vs. Hakimuddin Khan @ Hakim & Ors.”), whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,75,290/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded. MAC No. 1538/2018 & MAC No. 1551/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant is the insurance 7 company for the vehicle in question, which has the registration No. C.G. 07/AX/7600. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are the claimants, who are the widow, parents and brother of the deceased, while respondent No. 5 is the driver and respondent No. 6 is the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. According to the claim petition, the deceased, Late Satyendra Kumar Jangade, died in a road accident on 03.01.2016 while riding a motorcycle with his friend. A truck driven by respondent No. 5 in a rash and negligent manner, collided head-on with the motorcycle, causing the deceased to fall and get run over by the truck. Despite receiving medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The matter was reported to the police, leading to the registration of a criminal case against respondent No. 5, and a charge sheet was filed in the Court. Upon receiving notice of the claim, the appellant/insurance company entered the proceedings and resisted the claim, arguing that the vehicle was operating in breach of the insurance policy, thus they were not liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal has framed five issues based on the pleadings and evidence available, with both the claimants and the insurance company examining their witnesses. After considering the evidence and material on record, the Claims Tribunal has passed an award on 24.03.2018, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,75,290/- and holding 8 the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. He further submits that the tribunal has decided that the insurance company has not proved the same that the driver was being plied without any valid and effective driving license. He further submits that, it is a case in which the owner and driver was ex parte before the Tribunal in such a case insurance company is helpless to ascertain the validity of the driving license. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another reported in AIR 2018 SC 592 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “11. The question is: whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No. DIL-5955 was duly insured by respondent No.2 Insurance Company would per se
Decision
19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents No. 1 to 7 herein are the wifes, children, sister and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 84,860/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims 17 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 the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat