Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Branch Raigarh R/o Above Axis Bank, Rahul Complex v. 1 - Sundar Lal Sao S/o Bhogilal Aged About 51 Years Occupation Labour 2
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:34702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2052 of 2019 Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Branch Raigarh R/o Above Axis Bank, Rahul Complex, Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sundar Lal Sao S/o Bhogilal Aged About 51 Years Occupation Labour 2 - Smt. Ruchit Bai W/o Sundar Lal Sao Aged About 50 Years Occupation Housewife 3 - Ku. Gayatri Sao D/o Sundar Lal Sao Aged About 21 Years Occupation Student 4 - Bhogilal Sao S/o Late Ramdayal Aged About 80 Years All R/o Village Nawapali, Tahsil Pusore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1 To 4) 5 - Tilak Ram Sao S/o Sampat Lal Sao Aged About 28 Years Occupation Driver And Owner, R/o Village Nawapali, Tahsil Pusore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner) -- Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 _______________________________________________________ Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate : Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:17:21 +0530 -2- MAC No. 2038 of 2019 1 - Sunder Lal Sao S/o. Bhogilal Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Labourer 2 - Smt. Ruchit Bai Sao W/o. Sunder Lal Sao Aged About 50 Years Occupation-House Wife 3 - Ku. Gayatri Sao D/o. Sunder Lal Sao Aged About 21 Years Occupation-Student 4 - Bhogilal Sao S/o. Late Ramdayal Aged About 80 Years All Resident Of Village- Navapali, Tahsil-Pusour, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Tilak Ram Sao S/o. Sampat Lal Sao aged about 28 years, Occupation-Vehicle Driver And Vehicle Owner, R/o Village-Navapali, Tahsil-Pusour, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Raigarh, R/o Upon Axix Bank, Rahul Complex Dhimrapur Road Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) For Resp. No. 1 For Resp. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
insurance company before this Court in support of the appeal. 15. For the foregoing discussions, MAC No.2052 of 2019 filed by appellant Insurance Company is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. So far as the appeal filed by claimants i.e. MAC No.2038 of 2019 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, claimants in their claim application have pleaded that occupation of deceased as labourer and income of Rs.12000/- per month . 17. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that with respect to income, claimants have not produced any clinching admissible evidence and therefore learned Claims Tribunal has taken decision to assess income of deceased on notional basis,however, fell into error in assessing the income of deceased without considering the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. In the record there is no suggestive evidence with regard to wages prevailing on the date of accident of the place of which deceased was resident, -10- therefore, for the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘class-C zone/area’ monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019, has been fixed as Rs.8140/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 06.01.2019, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8140/- per month instead of Rs.4500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Learned Claims Tribunal has not added amount of compensation under head of future prospects as per decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it is clarified that where the deceased was not in permanent employment and below 40 years there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income of deceased towards future prospects for computing the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the case at hand, where age of deceased was 19 years, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of ½ and multiplier of 18 which is to the tune of decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15000/- each under the head – ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation -11- towards loss of consortium as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sehti (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. Claimant No. 1 & 2 are parents of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of ‘filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that the compensation under conventional heads should be increased by 10% after every three years and therefore the compensation under head of loss of estate and funeral expenses will be Rs.16,500/- each and loss of consortium will be Rs.44,000/-. In this case, claimant No.1 & 2 being parents of deceased would be entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- (40000 x 10% = 44,000) each towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. 21. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income : Rs. 12,30,768 (A) Income 8140 x 12 = 97,680 Addition future (B) prospects @ 40% (97,680 x 40% =39072) towards 97,680 + 39072 = 136752 (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (136752 x 1/2 =68376) 136752 - 68376 = 68376 (D) Multiplier of 18 68376 x 18 = 12,30,768 -12- 2. Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10% = 16500) 3. Loss of Estate (15000 x 10% = 16500) : : (+) Rs. 16,500 (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Filial Loss of Consortium of Rs.44000/- each (40000 x 10 % = 44,000) to claimants 1 & 2(parents) : (+) Rs. 88,000 Total compensation : Rs. 13,51,768 22. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.13,51,768/- instead of Rs.5,16,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 23. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 24. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary evidence i.e. Ex.D-3 placed on record by Driver/Owner of the offending vehicle has recorded a finding that as father of deceased has received Rs.3 lakh, he shall not be entitled for any amount of compensation as awarded by Claims Tribunal. This finding has not been challenged by claimants. In the aforementioned facts of case, amount of compensation received by claimants from Driver/Owner of offending vehicle is to be adjusted from the total amount of compensation to be -13- paid to claimants. Non-applicant No.1 -Tilak Ram Sao will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.3 lakh from compensation to be deposited by insurance company pursuant to award passed by this Court. 25. In the result MAC No.2052 of 2019 filed by appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed. MAC No.2038 of 2019 filed by appellant – claimants is partly allowed. Cross appeal filed by respondent No.1/non- applicant No.1 (driver and owner) in MAC No.2038 of 2019 also stands allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/-- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen
Arguments
: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate : _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 21/07/2025 1. As MAC 2052 of 2019 filed by appellant – Insurance Company and MAC No.2038 of 2019 filed by appellant- claimants arises out of the same award dated 26.07.2019 passed by learned First Additional -3- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No.27 of 2019, both the appearls are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants in MAC No.2038 of 2019 filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 06.01.2019 Basant Sao was standing along with his friend Ashok Rana near Banjari Mandir. At about 7:00 p.m., non-applicant No.1 driving pick-up vehicle No.CG13 AA 5126 rashly and negligently dashed Basant Sao, caused an accident in which Basant Sao sustained grievous injures and died on the spot. On the date of accident deceased was 19 years young boy, working as labourer and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Claimants prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs.37,92,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1/owner and driver of offending vehicle by filing his written statement, has denied the pleading made in the claim application and further pleaded that no accident occurred with his vehicle. Claimants are not the legal heirs of deceased. Compensation amount has been calculated in exaggerated manner. On the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company, therefore, non-applicant No.2 is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 4. Non-applicant No.2/insurance company in its written statement also denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that death of Basant Sao is not because of motor accidental injuries. -4- Incident occurred due to his own negligence. Applicants are not dependent upon deceased. Non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation if any. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Basant Sao, aged 19 years, suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,16,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1/ driver of offending vehicle was possessed with valid and effective driving licence overlooking the fact that vehicle involved in accident is pick-up vehicle (transport vehicle) and there is no endorsement in the licence of non-applicant No.1 authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle. He contended that as the class of offending vehicle is goods vehicle and therefore endorsement authorizing the driver of the said class of vehicle to drive transport vehicle is essential which escaped consideration of the learned Claims -5- Tribunal and has erroneously fastened liability upon insurance company to satisfy the impugned award. 7. Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose submission of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal on the pleadings made by appellant insurance company has formulated issue No.3 as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 in breach of policy conditions and decided the same as not proved. It is contention of learned counsel for respective respondents that learned Claims Tribunal considered that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid and effective driving licence which is produced in evidence as Ex.D-9 which bears endorsement authorizing, ‘licence holder’ to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Class of vehicle which non-applicant No.1 was driving was also Light Motor Vehicle as gross vehicle weight was less than 7500 kg. and therefore Claims Tribunal taking support of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 has held that non-applicant No.1 was authorized to drive Light Goods Vehicle also with the licence in his name of Light Motor Vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that claimants have filed separate appeal bearing MAC No.2038 of 2019 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.4500/- per month only overlooking the date of accident as 06.01.2019. He further contended that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of 'future prospects' and award of compensation on other heads is also -6- much less. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company perusal of record would show that copy of licence is marked as Ex.D-9 in the name of non-applicant No.1 Tilakram. It would show that licence was issued authorizing licence holder to drive Light Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle with Gear. Date of issue is 07.06.2018 for non-transport category vehicle. From aforementioned facts of case it is evident that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle was holding licence authorizing him to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Copy of Insurance Policy is also filed as Ex D-10 and copy of registration certificate of the vehicle is filed as Ex.D-1. Perusal of the particular of vehicle as mentioned in registration certificate would show that class of vehicle is mentioned as Light Goods Vehicle and its registered laden weight is 2450 k.g and unladen weight is 1450 kg. From aforementioned description as mentioned of the vehicle in registration certificate would show that gross vehicle weight of offending vehicle is less than 7500 kg. 11. The issue whether the person holding the licence authorizing him to drive Light Motor Vehicle is also authorized to drive Light Goods Vehicle came up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross -7- vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and 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 or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.” 12. Recently, in case Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that person holding licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle is also authorized to drive the Light Goods Vehicle coming within the weight of Light Motor Vehicle. Relevant paragraph in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) is extracted below for ready reference: “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation under -8- Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a “transport vehicle”, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663] is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 182. The reference is answered in the above terms. The Registry is directed to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.” 13. In the aforementioned facts of case, finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case -9- of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra) that non- applicant No.1 can also drive Light Goods Vehicle under the licence issued in his favour of Light Motor Vehicle do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly, submission of learned counsel for the appellant -insurance company that finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence to be erroneous, is not sustainable and is hereby repelled. 14. No other ground has been raised by learned counsel for appellant-