Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1- Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, S/o. Late
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.11 10:10:05 +0530 2025:CGHC:39618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1443 of 2022 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Rama Trade Centre, 3rd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1- Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, S/o. Late Shri Fouzmal Ji Maheshwari, Aged About 51 Years, R/o. Vivekananda Nagar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chattisgarh 2- Udit Maheshwari, S/o. Shri Rajendra Ku. Maheshwari, R/o. Vivekananda Nagar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chattisgarh. 3- Ku. Simran Maheshwari, D/o. Shri Rajendra Ku. Maheshwari, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Vivekananda Nagar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari Chattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 4- Phool Singh Rajput, S/o. Binda Prasad Rajput, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Ward No.22, Sheetlapara, Nawapara, Police Station Nawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 5- Shrawan Rajput, S/o. Babulal Rajput, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Village Tarri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6- Bharati Maheshwari, D/o. Sannilal Chowdhari, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Near Model School, K.G. Building, Dak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5 : None present. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate MAC No. 1056 of 2022 1- Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, S/o. Late Shri Faujmal Ji Maheshwari, Aged About 51 Years, R/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2- Udit Maheshwari, S/o. Shri Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Simran Maheshwari, D/o. Shri Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Claimants Versus 3 1- Fulsingh Rajput, S/o. Binda Prasad Rajput, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Ward No.22, Sheetlapara Nawapara, P.S. Nawapra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Driver. 2- Shrawan Rajput, S/o. Shri Babulal Rajput, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Village Tarri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.----- Owner 3- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Centre, IInd Floor, Near Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh -----Insurer 4– Bharti, D/o. Sannilal Choudhary, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Near Model School Menonite, K.G. Building, Daak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.4) --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None present. For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.4 : : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate MAC No. 1447 of 2022 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Rama Trade Centre, 3rd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Police Station - Civil Line, Tahsil - Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ----Appellant Versus 4 1- Smt. Bharati Maheshwari, W/o. Late Shri Aditya Maheshwari, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Near Menonite Model School, K.G. Building, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2- Phool Singh Rajput, S/o. Binda Prasad Rajput, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Ward No.22, Sheetlapara, Nawapara, Police Station - Nawapara, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Shrawan Rajput, S/o. Babulal Rajput, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Village - Tarri, Tahsil- Abhanpur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4- Rajendra Maheshwari, S/o. Fouzmal Maheshwari, Aged About 53 Years, R/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant For Respondent No.1 : : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3 : None present. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 07.08.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these three appeals, they are being clubbed together, heard together
Decision
and disposed of by this common order. 5 2. All three appeals are directed against the award dated 15.09.2022 passed in two claim case i.e. Claim Case No.87/2017 filed by the father, brother & sister of the deceased Aditya Maheshwari and Claim Case No.75/2018 filed by the second wife of the deceased Aditya Maheshwari. Two appeals i.e. Misc. Appeal No.1443/2022 & 1447/2022 have been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company whereas one Misc. Appeal No.1056/2022 has been preferred by the Claimants, which involved the same question of law and facts, therefore, they are decided together. 3. Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, aged about 26 years, died while the offending vehicle was being driven by Phool Singh Rajput rashly & negligently, which was owned by Shrawan Rajput and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, by which two claim cases were filed one by the father, brother & sister of the deceased and another by second wife of the deceased and both claim cases have been clubbed together and the learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record passed an award of Rs. 24,50,352/- along- with interest @ 6% per annum and also apportioned Rs. 5,00,000/- to the parents and remaining amount to the second wife of the deceased. 6 4. Two appeals have been preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company questioning the liability fastened upon the Insurance Company stating that Phool Singh Rajput, driver of the offending vehicle, did not have valid and effective licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle though he has a licence to drive non-transport vehicle; however, this plea was negated by the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari & two others have preferred appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed legal error in awarding only Rs. 5,00,000/- to the parents and Rs. 19,50,352/- to the second wife of the deceased. 5. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the oriental insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability upon the insurance company by holding that though the driver Phool Singh Rajput was having licence to drive the non-transport vehicle, but he did not have licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle on 28.03.2017, as his licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle was valid from 04.12.2012 to 13.12.2015 and thereafter from 12.12.2017 to 11.12.2020 and on the date of incident i.e. on 28.03.2017, he did not have valid licence to drive the heavy 7 goods vehicle whereas he had licence to drive non-transport vehicle/ light motor vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company be exonerated from the liability and in alternative directed to pay the amount and recover from the owner & driver of the vehicle. 6. Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ parent of the deceased would support the impugned award and submit that the apportionment made by the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous, which ought to have been equally divided amongst all the claimants and, as such, the appeal be allowed to that extent. 7. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel for the claimant Bharti Maheshwari, second wife of the deceased, would support the impugned award and submits that the apportionment has rightly been made by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 9. The first question in two appeals preferred by the appellant Insurance Company is with regard to holding of driving licence by Phool Singh Rajput, driver, of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck. 8 10. It is a case of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and he had only a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle/ Non-transport Vehicle. However, a careful perusal of the written statement filed by the insurance company would show that they did not take a specific & express plea that the offending vehicle was heavy goods vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle Phool Singh Rajput did not have licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. However, since the parties have joined issue, the trial Court has proceeded to consider the plea and ultimately held that the Driver (Phool Singh Rajput) had licence to drive Non-Transport Vehicle relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1. However, no evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company to demonstrate that the offending vehicle was heavy goods vehicle and the driver was required to have the licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. Furthermore, it is also the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that though the driver of the offending vehicle have the licence to drive the Non-Transport Vehicle and he was also having the driving licence to drive the Transport Vehicle from 04.12.2012 to 03.12.2015 and from 12.12.2017 to 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 9 11.12.2020 vide Ex.NA-2. As such, he had experience right from 04.12.2012 to 11.12.2020 to drive the Transport Vehicle except for the period of accident, as his licence was renewed for driving the Transport Vehicle and it is not the case of the insurance company that only on account of his non renewal of licence for a particular period including the date of incident, the said driver has caused the accident. In that view of the matter and for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal to fasten the liability upon the insurance company and accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed in both the cases. 11. The next question is with regard to apportionment of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded to the parent of the deceased and Rs. 19,50,352/- to the second wife of the deceased to whom the deceased was living. 12. So far as the apportionment of the liability is concerned, the amount of compensation in place of Rs.5,00,000/-, the parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- and the claimant Bharti, second wife of the deceased, is entitled for the remaining amount with interest. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain as it is. 10 13. Accordingly, both the appeals of the insurance company are dismissed and the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed to the above extent. Consequently, all the three appeals stand disposed of. Ashok Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge