Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.06 18:36:19 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:38787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1914 of 2018 1 - Suruchi Bai W/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 32 Years, 2 - Ku. Lomin D/o Late Ashok Sahu Aged About 14 Years 3 - Khileshwar S/o Late Ashok Sahu Aged About 9 Years, 4 - Ku. Geetanjali D/o Late Ashok Sahu Aged About 7 Years, 5 - Jagatram S/o Kisun Sahu Aged About 60 Years, 6 - Pila Bai W/o Jagatram Sahu Aged About 58 Years, Appellant No. 2, 3 and 4 being minor through their natural guardian mother Suruchi Sahu, All R/o Kosmanda, Post Office Mopka, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellants 1 - Jhangluram S/o Girivar Kurre R/o Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 1 / Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04-KF-1695. 2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Officer Incharge Lalganga Complex Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 2 / Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04-KF-1695. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bennoon Sabarwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For respondents : None 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 05.08.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.91/2013 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 10.03.2013 at around 12:30 PM near Village Borsi under Police Station Bhatapara, the driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04- KF-1695 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle"), Kamlesh Kurre, was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. During such driving, the front tyre of the motorcycle burst, causing the vehicle to lose balance and collide head-on with motorcycle No.CG-04-CU-0586, which was being ridden by Ashok Sahu from the opposite direction. Due to the impact of the collision, Ashok Sahu sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. Upon intimation of the incident, a case was registered at Bhatapara Rural Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The claimants have filed the claim petition pleading therein that at 3 the time of the accident, the deceased Ashok Sahu was aged about 35 years and earning Rs. 7,500/- per month by working as a tractor and jeep driver, through which he supported his family. His untimely death in the said accident caused an irreparable shock and loss to his entire family, which could not be compensated merely in monetary terms. Based on these facts, the claimants, being legal heirs, submitted a claim for compensation of Rs. 20,07,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seven Thousand) under various heads, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, to be paid jointly and severally by the non-applicants. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle, apart from admitting certain facts, contested the claim and submitted that at the time of the alleged accident, the driver of motorcycle no. CG- 04-KF-1695, Kamlesh Kurre, was driving carefully on his left side. It was further stated that the deceased Ashok Sahu, while driving his motorcycle No. CG-04-CU-0586 from the opposite direction, was riding in a rash and negligent manner and collided with Kamlesh Kurre's motorcycle. As a result, both Kamlesh Kurre and his pillion rider Sanat Kumar Diwakar died. It was asserted that non-applicant No. 1 was himself a victim in the accident and that the claimants had filed a false claim solely for the purpose of receiving compensation. It was further alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased Ashok Sahu, and 4 therefore, non-applicant No. 1 had no liability. It was also stated that on the date of the incident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 2, and hence, in the event compensation is awarded, it was the Insurance Company (non-applicant no. 2) that would be liable to pay. 5. During the course of proceedings, non-applicant no. 1 remained ex parte. 6. Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company, in its written statement, apart from admitting certain facts, opposed the claim and reiterated that the accident occurred due to the fault of deceased Ashok Sahu, who was driving negligently. It was contended that due to said negligence, both Kamlesh Kurre and Sanat Kumar Diwakar lost their lives. It was also alleged that the applicants had exaggerated the claim amount. Non-applicant No. 2 further submitted that on the date of the incident, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without a valid and effective driving licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also argued that the incident involved contributory negligence, and therefore, compensation, if any, should be apportioned between both vehicle owners and drivers. In light of the violation of policy conditions by non-applicant No. 1, the Insurance Company disclaimed any liability for payment of compensation. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence 5 brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.4,000/- per month, while awarding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded an amount of Rs.8,06,400/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.8,76,400/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has further held the deceased for contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and while deducting 50% amount, awarded Rs.4,38,200/- as compensation to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation towards loss of consortium. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various 6 heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has dealt with the issue of contributory negligence in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned award and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and high-speed driving of both the motorcyclists, i.e. deceased and driver of offending vehicle. The police, in its final report (Ex.P-1), found Kamlesh Kurre, guilty, but closed the case due to his death. Eyewitness Balaram (PW-2) confirmed that both drivers were booked for reckless driving. There was no evidence that the tyre of Kamlesh Kurre’s motorcycle was damaged before the incident. The accident was clearly a result of a head-on collision, indicating contributory negligence and the Tribunal concluded that both drivers were equally responsible and each liable to the extent of 50%. This Court hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Further, in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue regarding breach of conditions of the insurance policy and held that owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the amount of compensation as there was breach of policy conditions observing that the Insurance Company (non-applicant no. 2) denied liability on the ground that the deceased driver Kamlesh Kurre had no valid driving licence at the 7 time of the accident, violating policy terms. RTO official Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (PW-1) stated no licence was issued in his name, though he admitted in cross-examination that key details like date of birth and licence number were missing, making verification inconclusive. Insurance officer Naveen Soni (PW-2) confirmed the policy required a valid licence and the owner failed to produce one despite notice. In contrast, Ashok Sahu had a valid licence (Ex.P-10), which was undisputed. Hence, it was concluded that Kamlesh Kurre had no licence, and the vehicle was operated in breach of the policy, absolving the insurer of liability. This Court also affirm the said finding. 12. Now, this Court shall deal with the issue of compensation, to be paid to the claimants. 13. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.7,500/- per month while working as dirver, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 10.03.2013, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.4,646/- per month. 14. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared 8 by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 32 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 32 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2013, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.4,646/- per month, i.e. Rs.55,752/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.78,053/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.58,540/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.9,36,640/-. 15. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and 9 Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in view of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 16. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.4,646/- per month 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects Rs.55,752/- per annum 55,752 + 22,301 = Rs.78,053/- 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 78,053 / 4 = Rs.19,513/- = Rs.58,540/- 4. Compensation after 16 of multiplier applied 58,540 x 16 Rs.9,36,640/- 5. Towards estate loss of 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of in every 10% Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 10 three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of in every 10% three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.12,60,640/- 17. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,60,640/-. 18. As the Claims Tribunal held the deceased 50% guilty on account of contributory negligence, and this Court affirms the said finding, 50% of the total compensation amount is to be deducted on that ground. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.6,30,320/-. After deducting Rs.4,38,200/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.1,92,120/-. 19.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,92,120/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 11 20. Since the Insurance Company stands exonerated from its liability due to the breach of conditions of the insurance policy, the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified by this Court, to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 21. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge