1. Nathuram Satnami S/o Sujandas Satnami, R/o Ward No. 2, Tilda, Police Station Nevra v. 1. Narsingh Verma S/o Narbada Verma Aged About 47 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 214 of 2020 1. Nathuram Satnami S/o Sujandas Satnami, R/o Ward No. 2, Tilda, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur (CG) (Driver), 2. Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o Satyanarayan Gupta, R/o Saidham Tulsi, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur (CG). ... Appellants versus 1. Narsingh Verma S/o Narbada Verma Aged About 47 Years (Wongly Mentioned As Daughter Of Late Sanjay Dewangan In The Cause Title Of Impugned Award) R/o Village And Post Tandwa, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Fuleshwari W/o Narsingh Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Tandwa, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager (Division No. 1) Kutchahri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : For Respondent No.1 & 2 : : For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 13/6/2025 1. Appellants, driver and owner, have filed this appeal 2 challenging the award dated 14.3.2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.142 /2013 thereby saddling the appellants herein with the liability to pay amount of compensation to claimants, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.16,96,000/- under various heads, for the death of deceased Chanchala Verma in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are parents of deceased, on 24.9.2013 when Chanchala Verma was going on her bicycle, the truck bearing registration mark CG10-A-9733, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, dashed her bicycle and caused accident. As a result, Chanchala Verma sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Non- applicant No.1 and 2 submitted their reply to application denying rash and negligent driving on the part of non- applicant No.1, driver of offending vehicle. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also denied its liability on the ground that offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of essential conditions of insurance policy. 3. Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on 3 record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- and since it was found that the offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, respondent No.3- Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability and the driver and owner of offending vehicle, appellants herein, have been held liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal challenging the liability fastened upon appellants is filed on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously exonerated insurance company from its liability and held the driver and owner of offending vehicle to satisfy the amount of compensation recoding finding that on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license. Said finding is not correct as the appellant No.1-driver was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident but a copy of the same could not be produced by the counsel engaged by appellants before the Claims Tribunal. However, a copy of driving license of appellant No.1 is filed along with this appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record, which came to be registered as 4 I.A. No.4/2024. Considering the nature of ground raised in said application, this Court directed the insurance company to get verified the contents of driving license submitted along with said application and in turn, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company, after verification, has submitted through covering letter the extracts of driving license of appellant No.1 obtained from the concerned licensing authority i.e. RTO, Raipur. This covering memo is dated 6.5.2025. In the aforementioned facts of the case, as the license of appellant No.1 is valid upto 31.10.2013 and the accident occurred during validity period of license i.e. on 24.9.2013, the finding of the Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company and fastening liability upon the appellants herein is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that after service of notice in claim case, the appellants have submitted reply but did not produce copy of driving license before the Claims Tribunal. Even after service of notice of application for producing documents, appellants have not produced copy of driving license in the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. However, he does not dispute submission of counsel for appellants that upon production of a copy of driving license of appellant No.1 by appellants before this Court along with an application for taking additional evidence on record, the license was got verified by insurance company and the 5 license was found to be effective on the date of accident to drive heavy goods vehicle /transport vehicles. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 claimants would submit that claimants have filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that income of deceased as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side; nothing was awarded towards loss of future prospects and the amount awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. So far liability part of impugned award is concerned, perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal in Para 1o to 14 of impugned award has discussed with respect to issue of breach of conditions of insurance policy for want of license of driver (Appellant No.1). The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that non-applicant No.1 and 2 failed to produce copy of driving license in claim proceeding even after service of notice of application to produce documents. Consequently, it was concluded by Claims Tribunal that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle i.e. appellant No.1 herein, was not having valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and therefore, exonerated the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured and saddled the appellants herein , owner and driver of 6 offending vehicle, with the liability to pay the amount of compensation to claimants on the ground of breach of condition of insurance policy. 9. After filing of this appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional document on record i.e. copy of driving license of appellant No.1. It is not in dispute that after filing of application for taking additional evidence on record along with copy of driving license, pursuant to direction issued by this Court, the Insurance Company got verified the license from the concerned licensing authority and submitted the extracts of driving license issued by licensing authority concerned before this Court along with a covering memo. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 fairly submits that from perusal of extract of driving license it is appearing that on the date of accident, appellant No.1 was possessing valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle on the date of accident. 11. The copy of document/license, which is submitted along with application has already been verified and it is a public document forming part of the government record and it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company that contents of this document are genuine and further considering the object of the Act of 1988, I am inclined to allow the application for taking additional evidence on 7 record. Accordingly, I.A. No.4/2024 is allowed and the document i.e. copy of driving license is taken record. 12. Consequent to allowing of application for taking additional evidence on record, the finding of learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company and the offending vehicle was not plied in violation of any condition of insurance policy, it is hereby held that respondent No.3 Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 13. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 for enhancement of compensation, on perusal of pleadings in claim application and statement of claimants, it is found that the claimants themselves have pleaded that deceased was working as Tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Claim Tribunal believing the pleadings and evidence of claimants with regard to income of deceased, has assessed her monthly income at Rs.6000/-. When the claimants themselves pleaded the income which has been accepted, grievance cannot be allowed to be raised on the ground that it is on lower side. In 8 the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal was justified in fixing income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-, as pleaded by claimants themselves. 14. Keeping in view the age of the deceased to be 19 years and the fact that she was self-employed, the Claims ought was supposed to add 40% towards loss of future prospects, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. However, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards loss of future prospect while computing loss of dependency and thereby committed mistake. Accordingly, it is ordered that claimants are entitled for addition of 40% of established income of deceased towards future prospects. 15. Considering that the deceased was 19 years old unmarried girl, deduction of 50% towards her personal expenses and application of multiplier of 18 to assess loss of dependency was correct. Award of a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is also in consonance with decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. Perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, which is not in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, according to 9 which, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each shall be awarded to the widow of deceased, her children and parents of deceased, towards spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the appellants, who are parents of deceased, which comes to Rs.80,000/- (40000x2). Accordingly, the claimants, who are parents of deceased, are held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.
Decision
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation. 18. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- as fixed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% towards loss of future prospects, monthly income of deceased comes to Rs.8400/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after deducting one-half, total loss of yearly dependency would come to Rs.50,400/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18 to yearly loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,07,200/-. Besides this, respondents No.1 and 2 are also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for filial consortium i.e. Rs.80,000/-. They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses. Now, the claimants/ respondents No.1 and 2 will be entitled for a total 10 compensation of Rs.10,17,200/- in place of Rs.6,78,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application till actual realization. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to the impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In the result; the appeal is allowed and appellants, driver and owner of offending vehicle are exonerated from their liability to pay the amount of compensation to claimants and respondent No.3 Insurance Company is hereby held liable to indemnify the insured by paying amount of compensation to the claimants, as awarded above. Cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2/ claimants is allowed in part. Amount of compensation is enhanced to the extent as mentioned above. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge