Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 717 of 2021 Branch Manager Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. , Branch Officer, Narmada Road, Near Mittal Gas, Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Branch Manager Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur Division, Office, B-1 First Floor, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Balram Singh S/o Bansh Gopal Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Khadgawan, P.S. And Tahsil -Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3. Jagdeo Singh S/o Devraj Singh R/o Village Gajmarwapara, Ps And Tahsil - Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4. Smt. Rajkunwar, W/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 15 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 5. Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 15 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Minor Through Legal Guardian Smt. Rajkunwear 6. Kumari Rabina D/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 14 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Minor Through Legal Guardian Smt. Rajkunwear 7. Kumari Reena D/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 14 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Minor Through Legal Guardian Smt. Rajkunwear 8. Ukesh Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 5 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Minor Through Legal Guardian Smt. Rajkunwear 9. Narmada Prasad S/o Late Bisahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 10. Smt. Jagmaniya W/o Narmada Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Yadhipara, Ward No. 13, Ps And Tahsil-Khadgawan, District Koriya 2 Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Shrijal Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10 .01.2025 1. The appellant has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Claim Case No. 70/2018 dated 23.07.2021, whereby, an award of Rs. 9,77,200/- has been passed in favour of the claimants with the stipulation of pay and recover. 2. The facts of the present case are that the claimants moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,26,000/- for the death of the deceased Shiv Kumar. As per the averments made in the claim case, claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimants No. 2 to 5 are sons and daughters, whereas claimants No. 6 & 7 are the mother and father. On 31.05.2018, at about 7:30 pm, the deceased/Shiv Kumar was coming back from Akhradand Bazar on motorbike No. C.G. 16 C.H. 4144, the driver of the offending vehicle, driving it recklessly and negligently, dashed it; consequently, the deceased sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment on 01.06.2018. An FIR was lodged, and an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was registered. It is also pleaded that the age of the deceased was 29 years; he was a laborer and shopkeeper and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. The appellant filed a reply and denied the contents of the application. It is pleaded that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid 3 driving license and the motorcycle was insured with the National Insurance Company, whereas the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned tribunal committed an error of law by fastening liability on the appellant when the driver of the motorbike did not have a valid driving license. She would further submit that the learned tribunal ought to have fastened 50% liability on the National Insurance Company. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Gupta. Mr. Dashrath Gupta would submit that the claimants have the right to claim compensation from any of the Insurance Companies when two or more insurance companies are involved in the accident. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was a pillion rider on a motorbike bearing registration No. C.G. 16 C.H. 4144. The motorbike was insured with the National Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 1, whereas, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 16 C.A. 7533 was insured with the appellant. On 31.05.2018, the offending vehicle dashed the motorbike driven by respondent No. 2. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the injuries on 01.06.2018. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 did not have a valid driving license. 7. The learned tribunal assessed dependency, applied the proper multiplier of 13, added 40% for future prospects, deducted 1/5th part of the income for personal expenses, and thereafter, calculated the compensation. The 4 learned tribunal also awarded compensation on conventional heads. 8. The tribunal considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarn Singh & Others, 2004 AIR (SC) 1531 and held that the driver of the motorbike did not have a valid driving license, but the liability would be of the Insurance company to pay the compensation with the stipulation to pay and recover. The findings recorded by the learned tribunal in this regard do not suffer from any illegality. 9. In the matter of T. O. Anthony (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the claimants may claim compensation from any of the insurance companies when two insurance companies are involved in the accident, relevant para 6 is reproduced herein-below:- “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 10. In the present case, the bike was insured with respondent No. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company, whereas, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The learned tribunal fastened the liability with the appellant. 5 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law discussed above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned tribunal in this regard. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant