Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:32103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1768 of 2018 1 - Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 3 Middletion Street Post Box No. 9229 Kolkata (W.B.) Division Office Akas Ganga And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh..........(Insurance Co.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Keja Bai W/o Pratap Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Nagar Kohra Tahsil- Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pratap Sahu S/o Lekharam @ Lekharam Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nagar Kohra Tahsil- Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Miss Tulsi D/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Pratap Sahu (Grant Father) (Claimants), R/o Village 2 Nagar Kohra Tahsil- Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Miss Khemin Bai D/o Late Jagdish Sahu Aged About 3 Years (Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Mantora Bai Sahu (Mother), R/o Village Jarha Mahka Post Shikari Mahaka Tahsil Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.....(Co-Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt. Mantora Wd/o Late Jagdish Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jarha Mahka Post Shikari Mahaka Tahsil Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.....(Co-Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sampat Sinha S/o Banafar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kuhikhurd Tahsil Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Balod Bus Service Indira Chowk Balod Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh......(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. 3 For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : None. 3 MAC No. 1718 of 2018 1 - Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 3 Middletion Street Post Box No. 9229 Kotkata (W.B.), Division Office Akas Ganga Complex Supela Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.......(Insurance Co.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Nand Kumar Gond S/o Jeedhan Gond Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nagarkohara Tahsil Churiya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh......(Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sampat Sinha S/o Banafar Sinha Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kuhikhurd Tahsil Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh........ (Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Balod Bus Service Indira Chowk Balod Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner Of The Vehicle)., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & : None. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2025 4 MAC No. 1768/2018 & MAC No. 1718/2018 1. The present are Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 18.05.2018 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 90/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,29,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein and in Claim Case No. 103/2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 98,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The claimants (MAC No. 1768/2018) i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 and (MAC No. 1718/2018) i.e. respondent No. 1 represented by Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant is the Insurance Company of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07/E/0411. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the claimants and co-claimants, being the widow, parents and daughter of the deceased, while respondent No. 6 is the driver and respondent No.7 is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The incident occurred on 23.12.2013 when the deceased, Jagdish Sahu was riding a motorcycle along with Nand Kumar Gond from Chichola to Dongargarh, and was hit in a head-on collision by a bus 5 coming from the opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 6. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them during treatment. A criminal case was registered against respondent No. 6, and a charge sheet was filed in the competent court. The appellant Insurance Company, upon receiving notice, appeared before the Claims Tribunal and contested the claim, arguing that the vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and hence, the company was not liable to pay compensation. However, after examining the pleadings, evidence, and materials on record, the Claims Tribunal framed four issues for adjudication and, vide its award dated 18.05.2018, directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,29,000/- to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the vehicle was not having permit. He further submits that the tribunal has decided that the insurer has not proved the same that the driver was being plied without any permit. He further submits that, it is a case in which the owner and driver have ex parte before the Tribunal as such it was the duty of the concerned insurance company to prove the same which they have failed. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance 6 Company Ltd & Ors reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “In the case at hand, that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The Appellants had hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out Under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and Ors. cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the owner of the vehicle appeared and instead of that he has not produced any documents in respect of permit and, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rightly held that since the owner has appeared and instead of that he has not produced any permit as such the liability to produce the permit cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. 8. In the present matter, since 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 any permit, which the insurance company could not prove. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the appellant/insurance company (MAC No. 1768/2018 and MAC No. 1718/2018) are liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Cross-objection/Appeal in MAC No. 1768/2018 10. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 9,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 27,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, parents and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,59,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral 8 expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,29,000/- in favour of the wife, parents and children of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this cross objection/appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,29,000/- 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. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. None for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. 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 9 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 16. 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. 17. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5125/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 61,500/- 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. 24,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 86,100/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, parents and children of 10 the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 21,525/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 64,575/-. 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,97,775/-. 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/-X5+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. (Rs. 2,40,000-40,000 already given to the wife of the deceased so Rs. 2,00,00/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, parents and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,33,775/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 10,97,775/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 2,00,000/- with increase of 10% in every 11 three years (48,000X5- 40,000+10%+10%). 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. 13,33,775/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,33,775/-. After deducting Rs. 5,29,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 8,04,775/-.
Decision
20. In the result, the cross appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 (MAC No. 1768/2018) is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, parents and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 8,04,775/- 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. Cross-objection/Appeal in MAC No. 1718/2018 21. In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income during treatment, Rs. 12 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 64,800 towards loss of income. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 98,800/- has been awarded in favor of respondent No. 1 herein. 22.Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 98,800/- 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. 23.None for respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 24.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and required no interference by this Court. 25. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering has been awarded looking to the injury sustained by the claimant and rest of the awarded amount is reasonable and not required to be interfered with. 27. Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant the amount awarded in respect of pain and suffering is required to be enhanced. 28. In the result, the cross appeal filed by respondent No. 1 (MAC No. 1718/2018) is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering 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