United India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division No.1, United India Insurance v. 1 - Panna Lal Verma S/o Late Anandram Verma Aged About 40 Years 2
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:37798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 605 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division No.1, United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 HQ 0187) (Non-Applicant No.3) --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Panna Lal Verma S/o Late Anandram Verma Aged About 40 Years 2 - Rohit Kumar S/o Late Anandram Verma Aged About 37 Years Both R/o Village Budgahan, Post Beldar Sivni, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.1) 4 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsundara, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate _______________________________________________________ MAC No. 607 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division No.1, United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 HQ 0187) (Non-Applicant No.3) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.22 14:31:44 +0530 -2- Versus ---Appellant (s) 1 - Deepak Bai Mandle Wd/o Puranlal Mandle Aged About 28 Years 2 - Ku. Digeshwari D/o Puranlal Mandle Aged About 9 Years 3 - Ku. Ritu D/o Puranlal Mandle Aged About 7 Years 4 - Ku. Bina D/o Puranlal Mandle Aged About 5 Years 5 - Mandas Mandle S/o Ganpat Mandle Aged About 55 Years 6 - Smt. Ganeshiya Bai W/o Mandas Mandle Aged About 50 Years Minor respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 Through their Natural Guardian Mother Deepak Bai Mandle All R/o Village And Post Jadhlor, Tahsil And Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 7 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No.C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.1) 8 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsundara, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No.C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate _______________________________________________________ MAC No. 610 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division No.1, United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 HQ 0187) (Non-Applicant No.3) ---Appellant (s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Vimla Verma W/o Meghnath Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Devsundra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh -3- 2 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.1) 3 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsundara, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 Hq 0187) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate _____________________________________________________________________ MAC No. 1264 of 2019 1 - Smt. Deepak Bai Mandley W/o Lt. Puranlal Mandle Aged About 29 Years 2 - Ku. Digeshwari D/o Lt. Puranlal Mandle Aged About 9 Years 3 - Ku. Ritu D/o Lt. Puranlal Mandle Aged About 7 Years 4 - Ku. Bina D/o Lt. Puranlal Mandle Aged About 5 Years Appellants No. 2 to 4 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Deepak Bai Mandley, W/o Lt. Puranlal Mandle 5 - Mandas Mandle S/o Ganpat Mandle Aged About 55 Years 6 - Smt. Ganeshia W/o Mandas Mandle Aged About 50 Years All the appellants are Permanent R/o Village And Post Jadhloar, Tahsil And Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu, R/o Village And Post - Devsundara, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. -04-Hq-0187) 2 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu, R/o Village And Post - Devsundara, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04-HQ-0187) -4- 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Zonal No. 1), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. -04-H Q - 0187), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate _____________________________________________________________________ MAC No. 1423 of 2018 1 - Panna Lal Verma S/o Late Anandram Verma Aged About 40 Years 2 - Rohit Kumar Verma S/o Late Anandram Verma Aged About 37 Years Both R/o Village Budgahan, Post Beldar Sivni, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilavan Sahu , R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 1/driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 04/hq/0187) 2 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ram Khilavan Sahu , R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 2 /owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 04/hq/0187) 3 - United India Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager Division No. 1, United India Insurance Co. Pvt . Ltd., Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 3 /insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg 04/hq/0187) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on For Resp. No. 3 : behalf of Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ______________________________________________________________________ -5- MAC No. 1409 of 2018 Smt Vimla Verma W/o Meghnath Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Devsundra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Sheru Sahu S/o Ramkhilavan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04/hq/01787) 2 - Kishanlal Sahu S/o Ram Khilavan Sahu R/o Village And Post Devsudra, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04/hq/0187) 3 - United India Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager Division No. 1, United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04/hq/0187) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on For Resp. No. 3 : behalf of Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 31/07/2025 Heard. 1. As these six appeals arise out of the same accident, vehicle involved in the accident is also one and the same, and hence all the appeals are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these six appeals are that on 26/04/2015 at about 7.45 p.m., near petrol pump of village Kusmi under police station Palari, District Balodabazar, Sheru Sahu (respondent herein) while driving the vehicle No. CG-04-HQ-0187 rashly and negligently, -6- collided with a tree due to which Hema Bai Verma, Puranlal Mandle and Vimla Bai, who were travelling in the said vehicle, suffered serious and traumatic injuries. Pooranlal Mandle and Hema Bai Verma died on the spot. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, Vimla Bai suffered fracture on both legs and hand. She was taken to Shri Narayana Hospital Raipur for treatment where she was admitted from 26/04/2015 to 07/05/2015, she underwent operation, a metal rod was implanted in her hand and leg. 3. Claimants filed their respective claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) before learned Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur for grant of compensation under different heads on the grounds raised in respective claim applications. 4. Non-applicants No.1 & 2 (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle) filed their written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that alleged accident did not occur with the said vehicle. The applicants are demanding inflated amount of compensation on false grounds. They pleaded that as on the date and time of accident, vehicle involved in the accident was insured with non- applicant No. 03/insurance company, and hence, liability to pay amount of compensation, if any, would be upon non-applicant No.3. 5. Non-applicant No.3 /Insurance Company in its written statement resisted the claim and pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of vehicle involved in the accident, did not have a valid and effective -7- driving license, there was no fitness and permit of offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the conditions of insurance policy. Accident was a result of contributory negligence, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible for paying any kind of compensation to claimants. 6. Vide impugned common award dated 14th December 2017 while deciding the claim applications filed by the respective claimants learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Pooranlal Mandle, Hema Bai Verma and Vimla Bai sitting in the offending vehicle suffered grievous injuries; Pooranlal Mandle, Hema Bai Verma succumbed to injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, non-applicant No.3 insurance company in all claim applications were held liable to pay the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.2,10,000/ in claim case arising out of death of Hema Bai Verma, Rs.8,95,000/- in claim case arising out of death of Pooranlal Mandle and Rs.2,63,000/- in claim case arising out of injuries suffered by Vimla Bai. 7. MAC No.605 of 2018, MAC No.607 of 2018 and MAC No.610 of 2018 have been filed by appellant- Insurance Company challenging the fastening of liability upon it in award dated 14th December 2017 passed by Claims Tribunal and MAC No.1409 of 2018, MAC 1423 of 2018 and MAC 1264 of 2019 have been filed by respective appellant-claimants -8- for enhancements of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 14th December 2017. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company in MAC No.605 of 2018, MAC No.607 of 2018 and MAC No.610 of 2018 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deciding the issue No.2 “whether the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions ?”, as not proved. She contended that offending vehicle is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle (Taxi). However, on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit. Learned Claims Tribunal though had considered that on the date of accident there was no permit, however, while passing the award, concluded that for purpose of renewal of permit, advance payment is made and subsequently permit was renewed for a period from 15.5.2014 to 14.09.2015. She contended that Claims Tribunal assuming that amount was deposited much prior to date of expiry of earlier permit for period from 12.12.2014 till 11.04.2015, owner of offending vehicle deposited money towards issuance of new permit and therefore the lapse, if any, for issuance of permit after long time would be upon the office of RTO and not upon owner of offending vehicle. Such finding recorded by Claims Tribunal is erroneous. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santram & Ors. (MAC No.269 of 2011 and other connected case, decided on 21.11.2011). 9. Learned counsel for the respective respondents/claimants would -9- submit that learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that as prior to expiry of period of permit, owner of offending vehicle has already deposited the money for issuance/renewal of permit based upon which subsequently permit Ex.D-4 was issued on 15.05.2015 had held that it cannot be said that, on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit. They also submit that they have also filed appeals seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. They have filed separate appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver ad owner of offending vehicle) appearing in MAC No.1264 of 2019 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company. 11. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties I have perused the record of claim case. 12. Claimants in support of claim application have filed document of police case prepared by the police during course of investigation. Police during investigation seized offending vehicle, its RC book in the name of Kishan Lal Sahu, insurance policy, one licence and other documents relating to one fitness paper. Owner of offending vehicle Kishan Lal Sahu appeared before the Claims Tribunal as witness NAW 2/1. In his evidence, he produced copy of insurance policy, RC book, driving licence of driver. However, he has not submitted permit of offending vehicle effective of the date of accident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was having permit to ply Taxi vehicle from 12.12.2014 -10- to 12.04.2015 and thereafter permit was obtained for the period from 15.05.2015 till 14.09.2015. From the aforementioned dates it is appearing that for period of about one month offending vehicle was not having valid permit. 13. Insurance Company examined Sushmita Bala, Assistant Grade-III (Clerk) of insurance company as NAW 3/2 who in her evidence has stated that on the date of accident i.e.26.04.2015 the offending vehicle was not having permit to drive as a Taxi vehicle. Insurance Company also examined one Rajesh Bhargav, Assistant Grade-III of RTO Raipur as NAW 3-1. In his evidence he made statement that permit Ex.D-3 for a period from 12.12.2014 till 11.04.2015 was issued and thereafter permit Ex.D-4 from 15.05.2015 till 14.09.2015 was issued. For a period from 11.04.2015 till 15.05.2015 offending vehicle was having no permit . Accident took place on 26.04.2015. He also stated that if the vehicle is registered in Taxi quota it requires permit for plying it on road. Particulars of vehicle is filed as Ex.D-1 and Class of vehicle is mentioned as Jeep taxi, seating capacity is mentioned as six including driver. 14. From the aforementioned documentary evidence available on record it is apparent that offending vehicle was registered as Taxi and was being plied as Taxi (a commercial vehicle). According to provision under Section 66 of the Act of 1988 there was requirement of having permit to ply the vehicle on road as Passenger Carrying Vehicle. Claims Tribunal only considering that for issuance of new permit, application was made by the owner prior to expiry of earlier permit and in evidence -11- submitted Ex.D-3 copy of permit from 12.12.2014 to 11.04.2015 and Ex. D-4 copy of permit from 15.05.2015 to 14.09.2015. Prior to the expiry of the period of permit Ex.D-3 requite amount for renewal of permit and application was submitted and therefore it cannot be said that offending vehicle was being plied without permit . Said finding recorded by Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Tribunal even after considering the evidence of owner that to support his contention that application and deposited requite fee for permit, no document is placed in record, misdirected itself by recording that the fee for permit was deposited about 20-25 days prior to expiry of permit Ex.D-3. The said finding is without any evidence. Period for which permit was issued is already specified in the copy of permit issued in favour of owner of vehicle. It was issued from 12.12.2014 till 11.04.2015. Period of validity of permit was fixed on the date of issuance of permit. Owner did not obtain the new permit in continuation i.e. from 12.04.2015 but it appears that permit was issued only from 15.05.2015 having its validity till 14.09.2015. There is no material to suggest that owner of offending vehicle has submitted any application along with requisites fee earlier to expiry of D-3. Division Bench of this Court in case of Santram (supra) has considered the issue of expiry of permit and making payment for the new permit prior to date of expiry and observed thus: “6. On perusal of the record, we have found that the vehicle was plying without permit. Learned Tribunal has given its finding in favour of the owner mentioning that as the owner had applied for permit before the date of accident and had deposited the prescribed fee in advance for issuance of the permit, therefore, he cannot -12- be held responsible. But to our view, there was no proper permit because the vehicle was being plied only subject to issuance of prospective permit and therefore, if the permit was not issued, the owner had no occasion to ply the vehicle in absence of the permit. However, if any fee was paid in advance for getting the permit, it was totally the risk of the owner and therefore there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy. Hence we are of the opinion that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation and on this ground, the insurance company is liable to be and is hereby exonerated. However, it will be open for the claimants to realise the amount of compensation from the owner and driver jointly or severally.” 15. In the case at hand, owner failed to prove that, he submitted any application or deposited money for permit . Under Section 66 of the Act of 1988, it is specified that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods. 16. In the case at hand, offending vehicle was plied in public place without there being any permit and therefore in the opinion of this Court absence of permit will be breach of policy conditions. Offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. I find support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517 and Amrit Paul Singh and Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 558. -13- 17. For the foregoing discussions, finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that non-applicants therein failed to prove that vehicle was being plied without valid permit is set aside. Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. However, considering the fact that exoneration is on the ground that there was no valid permit on the date of accident for plying the passenger carrying transport vehicle, taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 558 I find it appropriate to direct insurance company to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle. It is ordered accordingly. 18. For recovery of the amount from owner of offending vehicle, insurance company need not file any separate proceedings and it can recover the amount so paid by moving an application in the same proceedings pending before the executing Court in terms of directive issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224. 19. So far as the prayer of enhancement made by appellant/claimant in MAC No.1409 of 2018 is concerned, appellant suffered fracture injury over her left femur, fracture of left tibia, fracture of malleolus left, elbow dislocation left, fracture of mandible and head injury as mentioned in discharge summary Ex.P-52. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,13,794/- towards medical expenses, Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income for a period of 2 months, Rs.5,000/- towards -14- attendant, Rs.10,000/- towards pains and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant/claimant, in the opinion of this Court, she may not had worked for about 6 months and thereby she suffered loss of income for 6 months. Claims Tribunal has assessed income of injured/claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month considering her income as Rs.400/- per day. 20. Learned counsel for insurance company would submit that in appeal she has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants. As the impugned award seeking enhancement by claimant is also challenged by insurance company on quantum of compensation, I find it appropriate to consider whether income as assessed by Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the fact of case. 21. Claimant/appellant Vimla Verma is a lady aged about 42 years and resident of village Devsundra, Police –Station Palari, District Balodabazar. Her income has been assessed as Rs.400/- per day which looking to the nature of occupation as shown and place of her residence appears to be on higher side. In the aforementioned facts of case, I find it appropriate to assess her income as Rs.6,000/- per month and loss of income for a period of 6 months will come to Rs.36,000/- (6000 x 6). It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant, which is also on lower side. Looking to the fracture injury suffered on upper limb and lower limb of claimant, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.12000/- towards ‘attendant’ period of 2 months considering the minimum wages -15- of labourer as Rs.6,000/- per month. Compensation awarded towards ‘pains and suffering’ is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-; compensation awarded under head of ‘special diet’ is enhanced to Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-. Further the claimants will be entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards ‘conveyance expenses’. 22. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. 1. Expenses towards treatment taken in hospital and medicines Heads Compensation 2 Loss of income for 6 months (6000 x 6= 36000) 3. Attendant for 2 months 4. 5. 6. (6000 x 2=12000) Pains and Suffering Special Diet Conveyance/Transportation expenses Total compensation : : : : : : : Rs. 2,13,794 Rs. 36,000 Rs. 12,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 8,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 2,89,794 23. Now the appellant/claimant in MAC No.1409 of 2018 is awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,89,794/- instead of Rs.2,63,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 24. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and -16- awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 25. So far as the enhancement of amount of compensation as prayed by claimants/appellants in MAC No.1423 of 2018 is concerned, deceased Hema Bai was a lady aged about 70 years. Claimants are married major sons of deceased. Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased of Rs.4,000/- per month, deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses. Insurance company has also challenged quantum of compensation awarded to appellants herein on the ground that claimants are major sons aged about 40 years and 37 years and therefore they cannot be treated to be dependents upon deceased. Ground raised by learned insurance company appears to be just in view of the age of deceased as about 70 years. She being old aged lady will be considered to be dependent upon major and earning sons and, therefore, the claimants would be entitled for compensation under loss of estate only. 26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 has held that right to file application for compensation and entitlement of compensation are two different aspects. Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered that appellant therein was not dependent, hence, she will not be entitled for compensation towards ‘loss of dependency, but only towards 'no fault liability' as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 as legal representative will inherit the estate of deceased and held thus : -17- 20. In my opinion, “no-fault liability”, envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of “strict liability”. In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs 50,000 in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallised amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under “no-fault liability” in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the “no-fault liability” under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 27. The facts of the case at hand is squarely covered by the aforementioned ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the facts of case, claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ but they are entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- as estate of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 28. Claimants are further entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- each towards ‘loss of parental consortium’. 29. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that compensation under the head of other conventional -18- heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ has to be enhanced by 10%. Thus, now the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- (50,000 + 16,500 + 44,000 + 44,000/-). Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- which is on higher side and, therefore, appropriate compensation for which claimants would be entitled would be Rs.1,54,500/-. It is ordered accordingly. Now the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1423 of 2018 are awarded total compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- instead of Rs.2,10,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 30. If the entire amount of compensation, as computed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, has already been paid to the claimants in this appeal, then there shall be no recovery from the claimants of excess amount of compensation if paid. 31. So far as the enhancement of amount of compensation as prayed by claimants/appellants in MAC No.1264 of 2019 against the death of Pooranlal Mandle aged about 30 years is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.4,000/- per month treating him to be labourer. Claimants have not proved the nature of occupation and income as pleaded in claim application by admissible piece of evidence and therefore Claims Tribunal justified in considering the occupation of deceased as labourer, and taking decision to assess income of deceased notionally. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering the wages prevailing in the area of which -19- deceased was resident of or minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevailing on the date of accident. As per notification issued by Competent Authority for the period from 01.04.2015 till 30.09.2015 for unskilled labour is fixed as Rs.5787/- and therefore in absence of any proof of income as pleaded by claimants in their claim application of Rs.9,000/- I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.5787/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 32. Claims Tribunal has further added 10% to the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects, which in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 is erroneous. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased is less than 40 years of age and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income and therefore considering the facts of case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ordered that there shall be addition of 40% to the assessed income towards future prospects. 33. Claims Tribunal has further applied deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 17 which are also to the tune of decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ to claimant No.1 /wife and -20- Rs.1,30,000/- towards loss of love and affection to claimants No.2 to 6. 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has specified the head of conventional heads and quantified the compensation to be awarded, i.e. ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ and ‘loss of consortium’ of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that children will also be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ and parents will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore claimants No. 2 to 4 will be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of ‘parental consortium’ and claimants No. 5 & 6 will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head - ‘loss of filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. As this Court has considered the award of compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’ claimants will not be entitled for compensation awarded by Tribunal under the head- ‘loss of love and affection’ as the compensation under head loss of love and affection subsumes under head ‘loss of consortium’. 35. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that compensation awarded under other conventional heads like ‘loss of estate, ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘consortium’ is to be increased by 10% after every three years and, therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to increase aforementioned compensation by 10%. -21- 36. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency : Rs. 12,39,589 5787 x 12 = 69,444 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (69,444 x 40% =27778) 69,444 + 27778 = 97,222 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (97,222 x 1/4 =24305) 97,222- 24305 = 72,917/- (D) Multiplier of 17 72,917 x 17 = 12,39,589 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500 (15000 + 10 % =16500) 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500 (15000 + 10 % =16500) 4. Loss of Consortium to claimants No. 1 to 6 of Rs.44,000/- each : (+) Rs. 2,64,000 (40000 + 10% = 44000) (44,000 x 6 = 2,64,000) Total compensation : Rs. 15,36,589 37. Now the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1264 of 2019 re awarded total compensation of Rs.15,36,589/- instead of Rs.8,95,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 38. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of -22- compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
39. In the results: 1. MAC No.605 of 2018, MAC No.607 of 2018 and MAC No.610 of 2018 filed by appellants – Insurance Company and MAC No.1409 of 2018 and MAC 1264 of 2019 filed by appellants- claimants are partly allowed. Impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 2. MAC 1423 of 2018 filed by appellants-claimants is disposed off with the observation and direction as indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen