Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Nasir Khan S/o Late Mohammad M. M. Khan , Aged About 44
Case Details
1 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:40896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1230 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional - Office No. 1 Madina Building Jail Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Non - Applicant No. 3 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Nasir Khan S/o Late Mohammad M. M. Khan , Aged About 44 Years R/o Guru Govind Nagar, Near Usha Girls Hostel, Pandari, Post Office And Tahsil Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Ramnarayan Sidar S/o Premlal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Laptesara, Police Station Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ( Non - Applicant No. 1 ), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2
Legal Reasoning
7. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that on 17.03.2015, at about 2:00 p.m., in front of Niko Gate No. 2, respondent No. 1/claimant was grievously injured when the truck bearing registration No. CG-04- JB-1411, driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, struck him, necessitating medical intervention which culminated in the amputation of his right leg. The claimant. therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor 7 Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 1,16,96,000/- from respondents No 2 and 3 as well as the appellant Insurance Company. While respondents No. 2 and 3 remained absent and the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them, the insurance Company contested liability on the grounds of the offending vehicle being blacklisted by RTO Bilaspur, lacking a valid permit, and being driven in contravention of the insurance policy terms, further contending contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Notwithstanding these contentions, after due inquiry and appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 24,43,200/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of respondent No. 1. The appellant Insurance Company now contends that the Tribunal erred in law and fact, misinterpreted the law, and incorrectly fastened liability upon it. 8. Having carefully examined the record, including the fact that the vehicle was actively engaged in public transport and the claim arose from a catastrophic injury to the claimant, and considering that contributory negligence, if any, does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is held that the Tribunal's award is just, reasonable and fully supported by evidence. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable 8 to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1539/2018 10. Brief facts of the case is that on 17.03.2015. claim petition was filed as Claim Case No 226/2010, inter alia pleading that on the said date. while he was standing near T-Stall a truck bearing registration No. C.G-04-JB-1411, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly struck him, causing severe bodily injuries. The claimant was immediately taken to the hospital, where he was admitted from 17.03.2015 to 07.04.2015, and later from 28.07.2015 to 30.07.2015, during which his right leg was amputated. it was averred in the petition that the claimant was employed as a supervisor in a private concern and was earning Rs 3 to 4 lakhs annually. Notices of the case were served, but the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained absent. and the proceedings continued ex parte, with only the insurer contesting the petition by denying all relevant averments. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and perusing the records, framed six issues for adjudication of the claim petition. After hearing the parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award dated 25.04 2018 (Annexure A/1), allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 24,43,200/- to the claimant. 11. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,31,200/- towards loss 9 of income, Rs 5,50,000/- towards medical expenses Rs 25,000/- towards special diet, Rs 25,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs 12,000/- towards convenience. Thus total compensation of Rs. 24,43,200/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 24,43,200/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 13. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No 3 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 respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be 10 just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza. 17. 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. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties it is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:" The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just 11 compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Rs 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant are hereby enhanced. 20.
Arguments
3 - Shri Vinod Pandey S/o Late Chhotelal Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 2 ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : None. Advocate. MAC No. 1539 of 2018 1 - Nasir Khan S/o Late Mohammad M.M. Khan Aged About 44 Years R/o Gurugovind Nagar, Near Usha Girls Hostel, Pandri Post, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Shri Ramnarayan Sidar S/o Premlal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Laptesara, Police Station Chandrpur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh....(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04-Jb- 14110, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Vinod Pandey S/o Late Chootelal Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..... 3 (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04-Jb-1411), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office No.1, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04-Jb-1411)....(Non-Applicants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, For Respondent(s) No. 1 & : None. Advocate. 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 25.4.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 1230 of 2018 is insurer's appeal and MAC No. 1539 of 2018 is claimants' appeal against the award dated 25.4.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No. 226/2016. 4 MAC No. 1230/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1/claimant, on 17.03.2015 at about 2:00 pm in front of Niko Gate No. 2 respondent No. 2. by driving a truck bearing registration No. CG 04-JB-1411 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle), in a rash and negligent manner, hit respondent. No. 1, causing him to sustain serious injuries, as a result of which he was taken to the hospital where his right leg had to be amputated during treatment. For the said injuries, respondent No 1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,16,96,000/- against respondents No 2 and 3 as well as the appellant Insurance Company, however, since respondents No 2 and 3 remained absent, the learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them while the appellant Insurance Company in its written statement denied the claim and pleaded that the offending vehicle was originally registered with RTO Raipur and was subsequently transferred to RTO Bilaspur on 13.08.2013, where it was blacklisted, rendering the Registration Certificate, Fitness, Permit and Insurance Policy invalid, thereby establishing that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the law. It was further contended that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5 driver of a Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. CG-04-DQ- 788, and hence, the owner, driver and insurer of the said car were necessary parties, and accordingly, the appellant sought dismissal of the claim petition against it, but the learned Tribunal, after due inquiry, awarded total compensation of Rs. 24,43,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and facts on record and is therefore liable to be set aside against the appellant Insurance Company, as the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding in para 18 of the impugned award that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. yet by misinterpreting the law and case law, wrongly fastened the liability upon the appellant, further, the offending vehicle was already blacklisted by the RTO, Bilaspur, and in addition, the claimant/respondent No. 1 was himself negligent while crossing the road which materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident, thereby making it a clear case of contributory negligence which the Tribunal failed to appreciate, and besides this, the Tribunal has also erred in arbitrarily assessing the income of the claimant on the higher side resulting in grant of 6 excessive compensation, and for all these reasons, the impugned award is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside so far as it fastens liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,43,200/- 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. 5. None for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 driver and owner of offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,20,000/- 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 the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat