Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1717 of 2019 • The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manger, Divisional Office No. 2, LIC Building Complex, Pandari Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Smt. Leena Dewangan Wd/o Late Lalit Kumar Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o HIG-3, Meenakshi Nagar, Behind Shukla Complex, Borsi Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Suryansh Dewangan S/o Late Lalit Kumar Dewangan, Aged 08 Months, Minor Through His Mother Smt. Leena Dewangan, Respondent No.1, R/o HIG-3, Meenakshi Nagar, Behind Shukla Complex, Borsi Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3. Smt. Binda Dewangan W/o Madanlal Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o HIG-3, Meenakshi Nagar, Behind Shukla Complex, Borsi Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Madanlal Dewangan S/o Late Devlal Dewangan Aged About 56 Years R/o HIG-3, Meenakshi Nagar, Behind Shukla Complex, Borsi Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.09 16:32:08 +0530 2 5. Bhupendra Chandrakar S/o Rajkumar Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Police Station Beltukari, District Nuapada (Odisa) (Driver). 6. Ragini Chandrakar D/o Rekhlal Chandrakar, R/o House No. 116, Ward No. 12, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ward, Old Ranwabhatha, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner). ... Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 to 4 For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (08.0 4 .202 5 ) 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 08.07.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 711/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 57,05,466/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 & 4 herein. 2. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 & 4 represented by Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow, son and parents (respondents No. 1 & 4 herein) of deceased – Lalit Kumar Dewangan by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 07.09.2018, the Tribunal awarded a total 3 sum of Rs.57,05,466/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the Bolero Maxi Truck bearing registration No. CG-06-GG-5112 by its driver Bhupendra Chandrakar – respondent No.5 herein; Lalit Kumar Dewangan died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident; in para 17, the tribunal found that according to registration certificate (Ex.D-2) of the offending vehicle, it is clear that the laden weight of the offending vehicle is 2620 kg, and it is also clear from the driving license (Ex.D-1) of driver- Bhupendra Chandrakar that driving license for non- transport vehicle was valid from 29.10.2015 to 28.10.2035, thus, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, decided on 03.07.2017, the driver/respondent No.5 herein was found competent the drove the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Maxi Truck and there was no breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation since the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. He also submits that the driver and owner of the vehicle have violated the insurance policy conditions under Section 149 of M.V. Act, therefore, the insurance 4 company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed and the insurance company is entitled for exonerated to pay the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 8. The main contention of the Insurance Company/appellant is that at the time of the accident, the driver had not possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive a transport vehicle, therefore, there was a clear breach of the insurance policy condition. 9. The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of license authorizing to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the vehicle other than the type of vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held that a holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. 10.Coming to the facts of the present case, perusal of particulars of license Ex.D-1 of driver/Bhupendra Chandrakar would reflect that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles 5 (LMV) which was valid from 29.10.2015 to 28.10.2035. The accident took place on 07.09.2018. As such, the driver had a valid LMV licence at the time of accident. As per the provisions of Section 2(21) of M.V. Act, all vehicles whose weight is less than 7500 Kgs. are to be treated as 'Light Motor Vehicle'. Perusal of vehicle particulars Ex.D-2 (particulars of registration) would show that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 1470 Kgs and the laden weight was 2620 Kgs i.e. less than 7500 Kgs. Therefore, the offending vehicle would fall under LMV category and the driver at the time of accident did have a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Even otherwise, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the said contention of the Insurance Company would not be sustainable. 11.Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and there was no breach of insurance policy conditions, therefore, the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. 12.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be dismissed. Cross-objection/Appeal 13.As regards the cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submits that only Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded by the claims Tribunal on the other heads, therefore, prays for enhancement of the awarded amount on other heads. 14.On the basis of income-related documents (Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-15) of the deceased, the income of the deceased has 6 been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 27,625/- per month, i.e. Rs. 3,31,498/- per year. Relying upon the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 50% towards future prospect, annual income of the deceased has been calculated to Rs. 4,97,247/- (3,31,498+1,65,749) and relying upon the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants calculated to Rs. 3,31,498/- (4,97,247-1,65,749) and after applying multiplier of 17 total loss of dependency calculated to Rs.56,35,466/- (3,31,498x17). However, only Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded on other heads which needs to be enhanced suitably. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 are entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/- (four claimants) for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 58,25,466/- in the following manner:- S. No. Heads Compensation 01 02 03 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 56,35,466/- Towards loss of estate Towards love and affection to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Total Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 58,25,466/- 7 16. In the result, MAC No. 1717/2019, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed affirming the liability part of the impugned award. 17. The cross-objection/appeal filed by the claimants/respondents stands allowed. The total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 58,25,466/-. After deducting Rs.57,05,466/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,20,000/-. 18. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein shall be entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall 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. 19. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. H.L. Sahu Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge