Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 11 2025:CGHC:33342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1983 of 2019 • United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex Jail Road Kutcheri Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Bharti Darro W/o Ramnath Darro Aged About 35 Years 2. Ku. Situ D/o Ramnath Darro, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Mother - Bharti Darro ( Res. No. 1) Both are R/o Village Dahi Tahsil Kurud, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3. Mangal Singh S/o Sundar Singh Gond Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Kanharpuri, Post Office And Police Station - Korar, Tahsil And District - Kanker Chhattisgarh (….non-applicant no. 1) 4. Smt. Mangali Bai W/o Phulchand Aged About 78 Years (….non-applicant no. 2) 5. Jairam S/o Phulchand Aged About 53 Years (….non-applicant no. 3) 6. Mayaram S/o Phulchand Aged About 53 Years (….non-applicant no. 4) (Res. No. 4 to 6 are Legal Representative of Phulchand S/o Ramsai Katar). R/o Village - Kirgoli, Tahsil and District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA WITH MAC No. 1692 of 2019 1. Bharti Darro W/o Ramnath Darro Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dahi, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Shitu D/o Ramnath Darro Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Bharti Darro, R/o Village Dahi, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari,................(Claimants) Versus ---Appellants 2 / 11 1. Mangal Singh S/o Sunder Singh Gond...Deleted. 2. Fulchand (Dead) Through Lrs.
Legal Reasoning
2.A - Smt. Mangali Bai ...Deleted 2.B - Jairam S/o Fulchand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kirgoli, Tahsil And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2.C - Mayaram S/o Fulchand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kirgoli, Tahsil And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Krishna Complex Raipur, Through Divisional Manager/divisional Office Jail Road Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh................(Insurer). --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ MAC No. 1983 of 2019 For Appellant-Insu. Co. : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Adv. For Respondent No. 6 : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate MAC No. 1692 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Adv. For Respondent No. 2-C : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 16/07/2025 1. As both the cases arise out of the same accident, both the appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 12.07.2019 passed in claim case No. 108/16, whereby the Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and awarded ₹ 15,83,264/- as compensation, are heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC No. 1983 of 2019 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award of fastening liability to satisfy the award upon it. 3 / 11 3. MAC No. 1692 of 2019, is filed by appellants-claimants challenging impugned award seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of these appeals are that on 04.09.2005 at about 01:00 pm, near village Dhaneli Kanhar, Ramnath Darro hit by a tractor-trolley bearing number CG05/5185 and trolley bearing number CG05/5186 (hereinafter referred to as “offending tractor”) while driving it rashly and negligently by non-applicant no. 1-Mangal Singh. In the accident, offending tractor turned turtle over Ramanth Darro due to which he crushed under the tractor and died on spot. Accident was reported to police station Korar and crime was registered against non-applicant No. 1-driver of offending tractor. 5. Applicants-claimants, widow and child of the deceased Ramnath Darro filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 19,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 38 years physically fit person, he was working as Asst. Teacher in Government Middle School, Kaika and earning ₹ 9,000/- per month. 6. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner of the offending tractor submitted their reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further denied that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor but stated that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased who came in front of tractor. It is further stated that on the date of accident non-applicant no. 1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured by non-applicant No. 3. 7. Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company submitted its reply to the application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending tractor was plied in breach of policy conditions. Offending tractor was being used for carrying passengers 4 / 11 in which deceased was one of the passengers, which is also reflecting from the F.I.R. and the Final Report brought on record by the applicants. Thus the non-applicant No. 3-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, if awarded. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, recorded that deceased died because of grievous injuries suffered by him, in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1 driver of offending tractor. Breach of policy conditions and contributory negligence were not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount and awarded compensation of ₹ 15,83,264/- against the death of late Ramnath. • In MAC No. 1983 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not accepting the documentary evidence ie., Ext. P-1 and P-2 and oral evidence brought on record by the insurance company showing that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling on offending tractor, came under it and succumbed to the injuries. He submits that in Ext. P-1, Final Report and Ext. P-2, F.I.R. it has come that the deceased along with three other persons were travelling sitting on the engine of tractor. He next contended that in the evidence of NAW-3-1 ie., the Law Officer of the insurance company also it has come that the deceased being one of the occupants of offending tractor at the time of accident could not fall within the category of third party. He also pointed out the evidence of NAW-3-2, Mukesh Kumar Kuldeep, Administrative officer of the Insurance company, wherein he stated that the insurance policy of the offending tractor was a package policy, the tractor could only be used for the purpose of agricultural activities and no risk was covered for the passenger other than its driver. 5 / 11 10. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon appellant-insurance company. They submit that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, hence, it does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. So far as the ground raised by the counsel for appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased on the date of accident was travelling on the offending tractor is concerned, perusal of pleadings made in the claim application would show that the claimants have pleaded the facts of accident mentioning that at the time of accident Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 1 while driving the offending tractor rashly dashed the deceased who was standing on the side of the road. From the pleadings, it is appearing that the deceased was not an occupant of the offending tractor at the time of accident. Claimants have examined Smt. Bharti Darro, widow of deceased Ramnath as AW-2 and AW-3, Vishnu, who is eye-witness to the accident, in support of the pleadings made in the claim application. 13. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance company in its evidence has produced copy of statement of Bharti Darro, widow of deceased (said to be recorded by Investigator of insurance company), copy of insurance policy, RC book and driving licence of driver. The Investigator, Ashok Kumar Solanke, NAW-3-1, in his evidence has stated that he went to record the statement of Bharti Darro during investigation. He also admitted that during course of investigation, he has not recorded statement of any other person like Sarpanch or Kotwar of the village, however, tried to clarified that he has not recorded any written statement of any person, took oral statement. 14. To prove the contents of final report, Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses ie., investigating officer, informant Somlal on whose instruction 6 / 11 F.I.R was lodged, to prove the fact of accident and also the fact that the deceased along with other persons were travelling on the offending tractor. 15. From the evidence of AW-2, Bharti Darro, it is appearing that deceased on the date of accident went to village Dhaneri Kanhar on his bicycle. In cross- examination, she categorically stated that she is not the eye-witness to the accident, she was informed about the accident by Vishnu. In the evidence of Vishnu who was examined as AW-3, it has come that he is the eye-witness to the accident, he at the time of accident was working on his field near the place of accident. He stated that at the time of accident, deceased Ramnath was riding on his bicycle and the offending tractor dashed him. 16. From the evidence of witness NAW-1-2-2, Tameshwar Sahu, who is also the eye-witness to the accident, it is appearing that at the time of accident the offending tractor was being used for agricultural purposes to carry fertilizers. He categorically denied the fact that the deceased was travelling on the engine of the offending tractor at the time of accident. 17. From perusal of the entire evidence available in claim case would clearly show that though in the F.I.R. there is mention that the deceased and other persons were travelling on the offending tractor, however, the informant of accident to police is not the eye-witness to the accident. AW-2 who is widow of the deceased is also not the eye-witness but went to the place of accident after happening of accident. In her evidence, it has come that the deceased went to village Dhaneli Kanhar on his bicycle. Vishnu- AW-3 in his evidence has clearly stated that deceased met with an accident with offending tractor driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently. Police during course of investigation have collected valid insurance policy of offending tractor, RC book, and driving licence of driver, which shows that on the date of accident, driver possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending tractor. 7 / 11 18. The statement recorded by Investigator filed as Ext. D-1, does not bear copy of statement of persons recorded by the Investigator, even it does not bear the name of such persons. In the evidence before the Claims Tribunal this witness has stated that he has not taken written statement but has taken oral statement of the persons. The Investigator has not recorded the statement of eye-witness to the accident and therefore the evidence of the Investigator to the effect that deceased and other persons were travelling on the offending vehicle is not acceptable in view of the oral evidence of witnesses before the Claims Tribunal. 19. With respect to the admissibility of the F.I.R. and other documents of the criminal case, Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of In case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer, reported in 2005 (1) WN 91, has observed that “In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of F.I.R. in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of F.I.R. and held as under: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. 8 / 11 The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 21. Considering entirety of the facts of the case brought on record by the appellant-insurance company, it has not examined Investigating Officer of the police department or any other police official or informer, the contents of Final Report, Ext. P-1 and First Information Report, Ext. P-2, cannot be accepted to be admissible evidence. The documents of the criminal case are not having evidentary value unless and until it is corroborated with the statement of person who gave information or lodged report or who has recorded the information so given by any person as held in the case of Nanhu Singh (supra) and Chamundeshwari (supra). 22. In the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the plea of insurance company that there was breach of policy conditions because deceased was one of the occupants of the offending tractor, met with an accident. 23. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 9 / 11 • In MAC No. 1692 of 2019 24. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation towards future prospects, overlooking the occupation of deceased to be Government servant. He next contended that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads is on lower side. Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to all claimants except appellant no. 1, widow of deceased. Claimant no. 2 is child of deceased, hence, she is also entitled for the award of compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 25. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and submit that the the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, hence, it does not call for any interference. 26. It is not in dispute that deceased on the date of accident was working as Assistant Teacher in Government High School and earning ₹ 8948 per month. Age of the deceased on the date of accident was held to be 38 years by the Claims Tribunal based on the post mortem report. Perusal of award would show that Claims Tribunal taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, and multiplier of 15, which are correctly applied. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 10 / 11 case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that where the deceased was self-employed person, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income and where the deceased was in permanent employment / salaried person, there shall be addition of 50% of the established income towards future prospects. Therefore, in the facts of the case, there shall be addition of 50% of the established income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 27. Further perusal of award would show that the Tribunal awarded ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 40,000 towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1, which are correctly awarded in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), further ₹ 10,000 is awarded to claimant No. 2. Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), has explained types of consortium to be awarded to the legal representatives of deceased and held that the widow is entitled for loss of spousal consortium and children and parents are entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000 each, respectively. Tribunal while computing the award of compensation has only awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No. 1 being widow of deceased only. Claimant No. 2 is child of deceased, therefore, she is also entitled for loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 28. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 1,07,376/- (₹ 8948x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 50% (₹ 1,07,376 + 50% of ₹ 1,07,376 = ₹ 1,61,064) • Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living Compensation ₹ 16,10,640/- 11 / 11 expenses (₹ 1,61,064 x 1/3= ₹ 53,688); ₹ 1,61,064 - ₹ 53,688 = ₹ 1,07,376/- • Multiplier of 15 ₹ 1,07,376 x 15 = ₹ 16,10,640/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 Loss of parental consortium to Appellant No. 2 Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 17,20,640/- 29. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 17,20,640/- instead of ₹ 15,83,264/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 30.
Decision
In the result, appeal filed by the insurance company in MAC No. 1983 of 2019 is dismissed being sans merit and the appeal filed by claimants in MAC No. 1692 of 2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge