Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case v. Johra Begum

MAC No. 291 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 29-9-2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.268/2016}

1. Johara Begum, W/o Late Salim Khan, aged about 30 years.

2. Basir Khan, S/o Late Fakir Moh, aged about 60 years.

3. Jamila Begum, W/o Basir Khan, aged about 55 years.

4. Afsana, D/o Salim Khan, aged about 14 years.

5. Asaual Nisha, D/o Salim Khan, aged about 7 years. Appellant No.4 to 5 are minor through Legal Guardian Mother Johara Begum. All are R/o Village Sijhanpuri, Post Office Junapara, Thana and Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) --- Appellants Versus

Sanjay Das, S/o Mahgu Das, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Jataga, Post Office Pasan, Thana and Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver of the offending vehicle Bus No.CG-10/G-1296) (Driver)

Gourav Sharma, S/o Brij Mohan Sharma, R/o Deepali Pitham Pura, New Delhi, Presently Address D-18, L-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner of the offending vehicle Bus No.CG-10/G-1296) (Owner)

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office West Dilli, Through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Guru Kripa Towers, 2nd Floloor, In front of Amber Auto Mobiles, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of the offending vehicle Bus No.CG- 10/G-1296) (Insurer) --- Respondents (MAC Nos.2010/2018 & 291/2019) For Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Owner For Insurance Company : Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocates. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 19/08/2026

1. Since both the above titled appeals, filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arise out of a common award dated 29- 9-2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.268/2016 and since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of ₹ 9,27,200/- as compensation for the death of Salim Khan, who working as Helper in Vandemataram Bus Services, aged about 33 years at the time of incident by fastening liability upon the owner of the vehicle – Bus. The claimants are wife, children and parents, of deceased Salim Khan.

3. The owner of the vehicle has preferred MAC No.2010/2018 questioning the award to exonerate him from payment of compensation, whereas the claimants have preferred MAC No.291/2019 questioning the award amount claiming enhancement. (MAC Nos.2010/2018 & 291/2019)

Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, would submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle in the capacity of passenger for which risk is covered and policy has been issued, but the Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that he was the Helper in the vehicle and therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation to the claimants. He would further submit that the deceased was working as Helper in Vandemataram Bus Services and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 5,860/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 4,500/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, would submit that the claimants and the witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased was Helper of the vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated from the liability.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. (MAC Nos.2010/2018 & 291/2019)

Though the claimants and the witnesses have maintained the fact that the deceased was Helper of the vehicle, but the witness of owner of the vehicle namely, Rajni Patel (NAW-2) – Manager of the owner of the vehicle, has clearly stated that the deceased was travelling as passenger in that vehicle and all of a sudden, he jumped and suffered accident. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, however, she has clearly refuted the fact that the deceased was working as Helper in the said vehicle. Similarly, driver of the vehicle Sanjay Das has also been examined and he has also stated that the deceased, all of a sudden, jumped from the running bus and suffered grievous injuries. He had also refuted the statement that the deceased was working as Helper in the Bus. Furthermore, the Insurance Company in the written statement para 1 filed before the Claims Tribunal has refuted the fact and denied that the deceased was working as Helper in the vehicle, however, took a plea that the helper risk was not covered.

Since the owner’s witness, driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company have maintained the fact that the deceased was working as Helper in the bus and the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to maintain the fact that the deceased was working as Helper, thus it could not be extracted that the deceased was working as Helper in the Bus which the Insurance Company also could not demonstrate that he was working as Helper in the bus. Admittedly, the passenger liability is covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated (MAC Nos.2010/2018 & 291/2019) from the liability. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation and the owner would not be liable. It is ordered accordingly.

In the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Salim Khan to be ₹ 4,500/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹ 5,860/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time).

Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as Helper in Vandemataram Bus Services, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation

1. Income

2. Future Prospect ₹ 4,500/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 4,500 x 12 = ₹ 54,000/-. (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 21,600/-; total yearly income = ₹ ₹ 5,860/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 5,860 x 12 = ₹ 70,320/-. (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 28,128/-; total yearly income = ₹ (2017) 16 SCC 680