High Court · 2025

Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd.Throu Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Smt. Aliya Begum And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Sharma,Waquar Hashim Counsel for Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad Ansari,Ashok Kumar Singh,Narendra Bahadur Singh,Shadab Waheed Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 17 of 2016 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Mohd.Wasim And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Narendra Bahadur Singh,Shadab Waheed Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. This is the batch of two appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act") filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. In an accident which occurred on 23.04.2014, two persons riding on a motor cycle died. Jaan Mohd who was riding the motor cycle died and upon his death his legal heirs filed CP. no.131 of 2014 which was partly allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 23.03.2015 wherein sum of Rs.6,50,000/- along with 7% interest was awarded in favour of the claimants. This award in C.P. no.131 of 2014 is under challenge in FAFO no.621 of 2015. The second person namely Momina Khatoon who was the pillion rider also died. As far as the claim petition filed by the heirs of the deceased Momina Khatoon is concerned the same was registered as C.P. no.141 of 2014 which came to be allowed on 30.09.2015 wherein a sum of Rs.54,500/- along with 7% interest was awarded which is subject matter of challenge in the connected appeal bearing FAFO no.17 of 2016. Since the facts of both the claim petitions is one and the same, accordingly, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Sri R.C Sharma learned counsel for the appellant has primarily raised three submissions: (i) The issue of negligence could not be established appropriately and in absence thereof no award could have been made in terms of Section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988. (ii) Driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proper in as much as he possessed the driving licence relating to the category of light motor vehicles whereas at the given time he was driving a medium transport passenger vehicle and since the licence was not for the said category, hence, the vehicle was being driven against the policy condition, consequently, the award could not have been fastened on the appellant. (iii) While calculating the compensation, considering the age of the deceased, future prospects of 50% has been taken in the case of Jaan Mohd whereas in terms of decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi; (2017) 16 SCC 680 at best the future prospects could have been calculated as 40% and, thus, amount awarded is also on the higher side. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondents has supported the award and has submitted that the amount as granted by the tribunal is just and proper and does not require interference. As far as the issue regarding licence is concerned it has been stated that from a perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle is seen it would indicated that it falls within the category of light motor vehicles and in case of any discrepancy in the category, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the Insurance Company rather they are liable to pay compensation and cannot escape from their responsibility. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the facts giving rise to the instant appeal briefly. On 23.04.2014 Jaan Mohd along with his mother Momina Khatoon was riding his motor cycle and was returning from his sister's house in Gram Ambarpur, Lucknow. While they were on Lucknow Faizabad National Highway and had reached near old Satti ka chaura Police Chauki, at that time the offending bus bearing no.U.P.45T2141 was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle from behind as a consequence Jaan Mohd and Momina Khatoon suffered serious injuries and died on the very same day itself. Two separate claim petitions came to be filed. In so far as the claim petition relating to death of Jaan Mohd is concerned, it bears no.131 of 2014, whereas in the case of Momina Khatoon's her claim petition was no.141 of 2014. The owner and driver contested the same and filed their written statement wherein they had denied the factum of the accident, however, it was pleaded that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the offending bus while the same was driven by Maya Ram Yadav who was its driver and he possessed a valid licence w.e.f. 11.10.2012 till 11.10.2015. It was also urged that if at all any liability accrued then the same was liable to subrogated by the Insurance Company as the vehicle in question bearing U.P.45T2141 was duly insured with the National Insurance Company ltd. Upon exchange of pleadings the tribunal framed several issues and after permitting the parties to lead their respective evidences the tribunal in case of Jaan Mohd recorded a finding that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing no. U.P.45T2141. It also considered the issue as to whether the driver had a valid driving licence. In answer to issue no.3, it was noticed that the licence of Maya Ram Yadav was valid from 11.10.2012 till 11.12.2015 and since the accident occurred on 23.04.2014 hence, the licence was valid. It also noticed that in terms of the registration certificate relating to the offending bus its unladen weight was 5450 kgs which fell in the category of light motor vehicle hence, referring to Section 2(21) of the M. V. Act, 1988 it arrived at a conclusion that the licence was valid. Thereafter the claims tribunal went ahead to calculate the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- vide award dated 23.03.2015. It will be relevant to mention that in so far as the aforesaid findings are concerned the same were also applicable in the case of Momina Khatoon but considering the age and the dependency the tribunal in her case awarded Rs.54,500/- along with 7% interest vide award dated 30.09.2015. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the aforesaid two appeals were preferred and have been argued by the Insurance Company on the grounds which have already been noticed hereinabove. The Court has considered rival submissions and also perused the material on record. Considering the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the tribunal has clearly noticed the statement of two formal witnesses as well as third witness namely Ashish Kumar Shukla who stated that on 23.04.2014, he was taking his vehicle from Lucknow to Faizabad while he was returning at around 6.00 p.m, he saw that the offending bus in attempt to overtake a truck hit the motorcycle of the deceased which caused the accident. A statement given by P.W-3 clearly corroborates the statement of the other witness. There is no denial of the fact that the said bus was at the given route. There is also no denial of the fact that accident occurred with the said bus. There is no evidence on behalf of the owner and the driver which could inspire the confidence to indicate that there was some cloud over the statement of the claimant witnesses. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned that had to be proved by the claimants and they had discharged their burden by examining the witness including P.W-3. There is nothing in his statement which can evoke any suspicion and relying upon the same the tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing no.U.P.45T2141 and this Court does not find that there is any error in appreciation of the evidence as well as coming to the conclusion as arrived at by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not find favour with this Court. Now, noticing the second ground regarding the licence, the R.C of the vehicle in question has been placed on record and it clearly indicates that unladen weight of the said vehicle is 5450 gms. The definition of the word light motor vehicle has been mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which for the ease of referenced is being reproduced hereinafter: "2(21). Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilo grams;" From a perusal of the aforesaid definition it would indicate that any transport vehicle, omnibus of which the gross vehicle weight of either of which or motor cars, tractors, and road- rollers the unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. This clearly indicates that in so far as the vehicle-in-question is concerned, its unladen weight was well below 7500 kgms thus, falls in the category of the light motor vehicle. As far as the licence is concerned admittedly he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. The contention that the driver was driving a medium transport passenger vehicle, the fact remains that it still falls as per the definition within the category of light motor vehicle. Any discrepancy in the licence cannot be taken as ground by the insurance company to evade its liability of servicing the award. This Court is fortified in its view and draws strength from the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs Rambha Devi and Ors; (2025) 3 SCC 95. Thus, for the aforesaid reason the second ground also does not find favour with the Court and is turned down. Lastly, considering the amount which has been granted, this Court finds that even assuming if the future prospects as granted by the tribunal has taken 50% as a base but the fact remain that this Court or the claim tribunal is bound to consider that just and fair compensation is awarded to the claimants. Admittedly, Jaan Mohd has died. According to his age the multiplier which has been adopted is not disputed coupled with the fact that if 40% of future prospects is taken as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant but at the same time it also need to be seen that certain amount which has been awarded are on much lower side coupled with the fact that Jaan Mohd is survived by his wife. The amount which has been indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) including non pecuniary benefits which have to be increased at 3 years, if taken note of including decision of the Apex Court in case of Magma Gen. Insurance Company Ltd vs Nanuram and Ors; 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.) wherein it has been noticed that the compensation which is to be awarded as well as the loss of the estate, funeral expenses if that is noticed and applied to the instant case whatever benefit the counsel for the appellant seeks by getting 40% as future prospects the same can easily be set off if the other compensation under the other head is taken note of in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which could equalize the amount which has already been awarded by the tribunal. This Court further notices admittedly there is no appeal preferred by the claimant respondents for enhancement nor there is any cross objection or appeal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the amount which has been granted by the tribunal is just and fair and there is no palpable error in the awards passed by the claims tribunal which may persuade this Court to interfere in the appeal, accordingly, both the appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. The award dated 23.03.2015 passed in C.P. no.131 of 2014 is affirmed so also the award dated 30.09.2015 passed in C.P. no.141 of 2014 are affirmed. Both the F.A.F.O are dismissed. Costs are made easy. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the claims tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant respondents as per the award. Any deficit shall also be made good by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 60 days from today. The record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Harshita HARSHITA HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd.Throu Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Smt. Aliya Begum And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Sharma,Waquar Hashim Counsel for Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad Ansari,Ashok Kumar Singh,Narendra Bahadur Singh,Shadab Waheed Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 17 of 2016 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Mohd.Wasim And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Narendra Bahadur Singh,Shadab Waheed Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. This is the batch of two appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act") filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. In an accident which occurred on 23.04.2014, two persons riding on a motor cycle died. Jaan Mohd who was riding the motor cycle died and upon his death his legal heirs filed CP. no.131 of 2014 which was partly allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 23.03.2015 wherein sum of Rs.6,50,000/- along with 7% interest was awarded in favour of the claimants. This award in C.P. no.131 of 2014 is under challenge in FAFO no.621 of 2015. The second person namely Momina Khatoon who was the pillion rider also died. As far as the claim petition filed by the heirs of the deceased Momina Khatoon is concerned the same was registered as C.P. no.141 of 2014 which came to be allowed on 30.09.2015 wherein a sum of Rs.54,500/- along with 7% interest was awarded which is subject matter of challenge in the connected appeal bearing FAFO no.17 of 2016. Since the facts of both the claim petitions is one and the same, accordingly, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Sri R.C Sharma learned counsel for the appellant has primarily raised three submissions: (i) The issue of negligence could not be established appropriately and in absence thereof no award could have been made in terms of Section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988. (ii) Driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proper in as much as he possessed the driving licence relating to the category of light motor vehicles whereas at the given time he was driving a medium transport passenger vehicle and since the licence was not for the said category, hence, the vehicle was being driven against the policy condition, consequently, the award could not have been fastened on the appellant. (iii) While calculating the compensation, considering the age of the deceased, future prospects of 50% has been taken in the case of Jaan Mohd whereas in terms of decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi; (2017) 16 SCC 680 at best the future prospects could have been calculated as 40% and, thus, amount awarded is also on the higher side. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondents has supported the award and has submitted that the amount as granted by the tribunal is just and proper and does not require interference. As far as the issue regarding licence is concerned it has been stated that from a perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle is seen it would indicated that it falls within the category of light motor vehicles and in case of any discrepancy in the category, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the Insurance Company rather they are liable to pay compensation and cannot escape from their responsibility. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the facts giving rise to the instant appeal briefly. On 23.04.2014 Jaan Mohd along with his mother Momina Khatoon was riding his motor cycle and was returning from his sister's house in Gram Ambarpur, Lucknow. While they were on Lucknow Faizabad National Highway and had reached near old Satti ka chaura Police Chauki, at that time the offending bus bearing no.U.P.45T2141 was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle from behind as a consequence Jaan Mohd and Momina Khatoon suffered serious injuries and died on the very same day itself. Two separate claim petitions came to be filed. In so far as the claim petition relating to death of Jaan Mohd is concerned, it bears no.131 of 2014, whereas in the case of Momina Khatoon's her claim petition was no.141 of 2014. The owner and driver contested the same and filed their written statement wherein they had denied the factum of the accident, however, it was pleaded that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the offending bus while the same was driven by Maya Ram Yadav who was its driver and he possessed a valid licence w.e.f. 11.10.2012 till 11.10.2015. It was also urged that if at all any liability accrued then the same was liable to subrogated by the Insurance Company as the vehicle in question bearing U.P.45T2141 was duly insured with the National Insurance Company ltd. Upon exchange of pleadings the tribunal framed several issues and after permitting the parties to lead their respective evidences the tribunal in case of Jaan Mohd recorded a finding that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing no. U.P.45T2141. It also considered the issue as to whether the driver had a valid driving licence. In answer to issue no.3, it was noticed that the licence of Maya Ram Yadav was valid from 11.10.2012 till 11.12.2015 and since the accident occurred on 23.04.2014 hence, the licence was valid. It also noticed that in terms of the registration certificate relating to the offending bus its unladen weight was 5450 kgs which fell in the category of light motor vehicle hence, referring to Section 2(21) of the M. V. Act, 1988 it arrived at a conclusion that the licence was valid. Thereafter the claims tribunal went ahead to calculate the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- vide award dated 23.03.2015. It will be relevant to mention that in so far as the aforesaid findings are concerned the same were also applicable in the case of Momina Khatoon but considering the age and the dependency the tribunal in her case awarded Rs.54,500/- along with 7% interest vide award dated 30.09.2015. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the aforesaid two appeals were preferred and have been argued by the Insurance Company on the grounds which have already been noticed hereinabove. The Court has considered rival submissions and also perused the material on record. Considering the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the tribunal has clearly noticed the statement of two formal witnesses as well as third witness namely Ashish Kumar Shukla who stated that on 23.04.2014, he was taking his vehicle from Lucknow to Faizabad while he was returning at around 6.00 p.m, he saw that the offending bus in attempt to overtake a truck hit the motorcycle of the deceased which caused the accident. A statement given by P.W-3 clearly corroborates the statement of the other witness. There is no denial of the fact that the said bus was at the given route. There is also no denial of the fact that accident occurred with the said bus. There is no evidence on behalf of the owner and the driver which could inspire the confidence to indicate that there was some cloud over the statement of the claimant witnesses. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned that had to be proved by the claimants and they had discharged their burden by examining the witness including P.W-3. There is nothing in his statement which can evoke any suspicion and relying upon the same the tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing no.U.P.45T2141 and this Court does not find that there is any error in appreciation of the evidence as well as coming to the conclusion as arrived at by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not find favour with this Court. Now, noticing the second ground regarding the licence, the R.C of the vehicle in question has been placed on record and it clearly indicates that unladen weight of the said vehicle is 5450 gms. The definition of the word light motor vehicle has been mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which for the ease of referenced is being reproduced hereinafter: "2(21). Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilo grams;" From a perusal of the aforesaid definition it would indicate that any transport vehicle, omnibus of which the gross vehicle weight of either of which or motor cars, tractors, and road- rollers the unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. This clearly indicates that in so far as the vehicle-in-question is concerned, its unladen weight was well below 7500 kgms thus, falls in the category of the light motor vehicle. As far as the licence is concerned admittedly he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. The contention that the driver was driving a medium transport passenger vehicle, the fact remains that it still falls as per the definition within the category of light motor vehicle. Any discrepancy in the licence cannot be taken as ground by the insurance company to evade its liability of servicing the award. This Court is fortified in its view and draws strength from the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs Rambha Devi and Ors; (2025) 3 SCC 95. Thus, for the aforesaid reason the second ground also does not find favour with the Court and is turned down. Lastly, considering the amount which has been granted, this Court finds that even assuming if the future prospects as granted by the tribunal has taken 50% as a base but the fact remain that this Court or the claim tribunal is bound to consider that just and fair compensation is awarded to the claimants. Admittedly, Jaan Mohd has died. According to his age the multiplier which has been adopted is not disputed coupled with the fact that if 40% of future prospects is taken as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant but at the same time it also need to be seen that certain amount which has been awarded are on much lower side coupled with the fact that Jaan Mohd is survived by his wife. The amount which has been indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) including non pecuniary benefits which have to be increased at 3 years, if taken note of including decision of the Apex Court in case of Magma Gen. Insurance Company Ltd vs Nanuram and Ors; 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.) wherein it has been noticed that the compensation which is to be awarded as well as the loss of the estate, funeral expenses if that is noticed and applied to the instant case whatever benefit the counsel for the appellant seeks by getting 40% as future prospects the same can easily be set off if the other compensation under the other head is taken note of in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which could equalize the amount which has already been awarded by the tribunal. This Court further notices admittedly there is no appeal preferred by the claimant respondents for enhancement nor there is any cross objection or appeal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the amount which has been granted by the tribunal is just and fair and there is no palpable error in the awards passed by the claims tribunal which may persuade this Court to interfere in the appeal, accordingly, both the appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. The award dated 23.03.2015 passed in C.P. no.131 of 2014 is affirmed so also the award dated 30.09.2015 passed in C.P. no.141 of 2014 are affirmed. Both the F.A.F.O are dismissed. Costs are made easy. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the claims tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant respondents as per the award. Any deficit shall also be made good by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 60 days from today. The record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Harshita HARSHITA HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench