[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sadhna vs Rampravesh Mali on 30 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.30
17:26:04 +0530
2025:CGHC:19722
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1620 of 2017
Reserved on 21.04.2025
Delivered on 30.04.2025
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office Ambikapur Chhattisgarh Through Authorised
Siganatury For The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Bilaspur Divisional Office 2nd Floor Gurukripa Towers Vyapar
Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1. Sadhna Wd/o Baccha Lal Aged About 44 Years, Occupation
House Wife, R/o Village Kalua Post Kalua, P. S. Surajpur District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
2. Hemant Kumar S/o Late Bachha Lal Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Kalua Post Kalua, P. S. Surajpur District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh
3. Shyam Lal S/o Late Bachha Lal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
Kalua Post Kalua, P. S. Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
4. Bobby Bai D/o Late Baccha Lal Aged About 25 Years Occupation
House Wife, R/o Village Kalua Post Kalua, P. S. Surajpur District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
2
5. Rampravesh Mali, S/o Ramoutar Mali, Aged About 46 Years
Vivekanand Colony Charcha Tehsil Baikunthpur District Koriya
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate, along with
Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate, along
with Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate
MAC No. 51 of 2018
1. Sadhna W/o Bachcha Lal Aged About 44 Years R/o Bardiya
Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Hemant Kumar S/o Bachcha Lal Aged About 23 Years R/o
Bardiya Police Station Patna Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Shyamlal S/o Bachcha Lal Aged About 24 Years R/o Bardiya,
Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Babi Bai D/o Bachcha Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
Kaluwa, Post Kulwa, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh. ........Claimants.
---Appellants
Versus
1. Rampravesh Mali S/o Ramautar Mali Aged About 46 Years R/o
Vivekanand Colony Charcha, Tahsil, Baikunthpur, District Korea,
Chhattisgarh. ..Driver-Cum-Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing
Registration No. CG-16-C-7255.
2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Insurer
Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G -16-C-7255
--- Respondent(s)
3
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate, along
with Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate, along with
Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
CAV ORDER
1. Both the appeals have been filed under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 25/08/2017 passed by
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Baikunthpur,
District-Korea, Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.60/2013 (hereinafter referred as “the award in question”)
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 14/10/2011 Bachcha Lal
(deceased) was going to village Bartiya on a motorcycle with Vinod
Kumar. When they reached near Bhadi Devalla, a motorcycle
bearing registration No. CG-16-C-7255 (hereinafter referred to as
“the offending vehicle”) coming from the opposite direction driven
by Rampravesh Mali rashly and negligently dashed their
motorcycle, as a result of which, Bachcha Lal suffered grievous
injuries on his head, nose, ear, hand etc. He was first taken to
Government Hospital, Baikunthpur. However, considering the
seriousness of the injuries, he was referred to Regional Hospital,
Charcha, from where he was again referred to Apollo Hospital,
Bilaspur where he was admitted and treated till 14/11/2011 i.e. for
about a month. He came home after taking two days leave from
the hospital. On 18/11/2015, when he was going to Apollo Hospital,
Bilaspur for treatment, he died on the way. On the information of
Vinod Kumar regarding the incident, FIR (Exhibit P-2) was
registered on 14/10/2011. After receiving information about death
of Bachcha Lal, the Police completed the investigation and filed a
charge sheet against the driver of the offending motorcycle,
4
Rampravesh Mali, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The wife and three children of deceased Bachcha Lal preferred a
claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
stating that 45-year-old Bachcha Lal was working in SECL Katkona
Colliery and due to his casual death in the accident, they have
become destitute. Therefore, they made a request for
compensation of Rs. 43,00,000/- under various heads with interest.
4. In the claim case, deceased Bachcha Lal’s wife Sadhna (AW-1)
and son Shyamlal (AW-2) were examined from the claimants side,
while the driver of the offending motorcycle, Rampravesh Mali
(NAW-1) was examined on behalf of the non-applicants. After
hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the offending
vehicle was insured by the appellant-insurance company and there
was no breach of insurance conditions. The argument of the non-
applicant party regarding contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased was rejected by the Tribunal. After the death of Bachcha
Lal, as the claimant party did not inform the police about his death,
no Merg was registered in the matter nor was the post-mortem of
Bachcha Lal conducted. But on the basis of evidence brought on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Bachcha Lal’s
death was due to accidental injuries and finding this, determined
the monthly income of Bachcha Lal to be Rs. 26,783/-, age 55
years, future prospects 15% and personal expenses as ¼th of the
income. Applying the multiplier of 11 and granting Rs.70,000 under
other heads, an award of Rs. 27,21,616/- was passed in favour of
the claimants and against the appellant insurance company, the
driver/owner of the offending motorcycle, Rampravesh Mali.
MAC No.-1620/2017
5. The first argument of learned counsel for the appellant – insurance
company is that neither the Police was informed about the death of
5
deceased Bachcha Lal nor was his dead-body was subjected to
postmorted. Thus, it has not been proved in the case that Bachcha
Lal died due to accidental injuries. In such a situation, the award in
question passed on the application filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act is not sustainable. In support his argument,
learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anil and others v. New India Assurance
Company Limited and others, (2018) 2 SCC 482.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has argued
that the deceased’s wife Sadhna (AW-1) and son Shyamlal (AW-2)
have been examined in the court. The documentary evidence of
the charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the
offending motorcycle, Rampravesh Mali, have been presented as
Exhibit P-1 to 39. From which, it is clear that due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, Bachcha Lal was admitted in Apollo
Hospital, Bilaspur for about one month till 14/11/2011 and came
home only for 02 days. When he was going to Apollo Hospital,
Bilaspur for treatment again, he died on the way. Thus, it has been
proved from the evidence and circumstances that his death was
due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In such a situation,
the argument raised by the insurance company is not acceptable,
therefore, the insurance company would not get any benefit from
the judgment cited by it on account of difference in facts and
circumstances of the case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
minutely.
8. It is clear from the evidence that even Rampravesh Mali, the driver
of the offending motorcycle, has not denied the fact that Bachcha
Lal got injured in the accident. The deceased’s wife Sadhana (AW-
1) and son Shyamlal (AW-2) have stated that Bachcha Lal was
injured in the accident. The documents presented by them from
6Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-39 also make it clear that after being
injured, Bachcha Lal was first admitted to the Government
Hospital, Baikunthpur, then to Charcha Hospital and from
15/10/2011 to 14/11/2011 he was admitted to Apollo Hospital,
Bilaspur for treatment. Although postmortem has not been
conducted, his medical examination (Exhibit P-4) conducted
immediately after the accident shows that he had suffered several
injuries and his condition was critical. His treatment continued for
about a month in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. He was discharged
from the hospital on 14/11/2011 and died on 18/11/2011 while on
his way back to the hospital for treatment. Charge-sheet has also
been filed by the police against Rampravesh under section 304(A)
of IPC. There is no circumstance in the entire evidence to suggest
that his death was due to any other reason other than the injuries
sustained in the accident.
9. In the judgment cited by the insurance company in the case of Anil
(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the award passed
by the Tribunal had been set aside by the High Court. The reason
for setting aside was that the death was not proved to have
occurred in an accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal filed against that order of the High Court. In that case, the
tractor which was said to have caused the accident was owned by
the brother of the deceased. In that case, the post-mortem was not
conducted. The report regarding accident was lodged with a delay
of about one month. There was no documentary evidence of the
hospital regarding the treatment of the deceased in respect of his
injuries. For the above reasons, the High Court found that it was
not proved that the death was caused due to injuries sustained in
the accident by the offending vehicle i.e. the tractor.
10. In the case before this Court, not only the FIR was registered on
the date of the accident i.e. 14.10.2011, but the documents
regarding injured Bachcha Lal’s hospitalization in Apollo Hospital,
7
Bilaspur for one month till 14/11/2011 are on record and the
discharge summary has also been produced. It is also clear from
the MLC report that the deceased had suffered serious injuries.
There does not appear to be any relation between the deceased
and the owner of the offending motorcycle. As per the charge-
sheet presented by the Police, Bachcha Lal died due to the injuries
suffered in the accident and the charge-sheet was filed against the
driver of the offending motorcycle, Rampravesh Mali, under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act is a matter of
summary investigation, in which it is not necessary to follow the
strict provisions of the Evidence Act. In this regard, while dealing
with the reliability of charge-sheet and other documents collected
by the Police during the investigation in motor accident cases, in
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors., (2018) 5
SCC 656, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the case of the
claimants is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and observed as
under:
“27. Another reason which weighed with the High
Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by
Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the
Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver
of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable.
Out understanding of the analysis done by the
Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4721 was
driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when
it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant
leading to the accident. This can be discerned from
the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the
charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent
2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes (Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to
be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
8preponderance of probability and certainly not by
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice
it to observe that the exposition in the judgments
already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that
the same may be of no effect on the assessment of
the liability required in respect of motor accident
cases by the Tribunal.”
12. In the case of Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi & Anr.
(2023) 13 SCC 510, it has been held by the Supreme Court that
the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities; the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition
seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road
traffic accident and observed as under:
“12. …..A holistic view of the evidence has to be
taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict
proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in
a particular manner need not be established by the
claimants. The claimants have to establish their case
on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied while considering the petition
seeking compensation on account of death or injury
in a road traffic accident. To ;the same effect is the
observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in
Bimla Devi.”
13. In the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accidental death of Bachcha
Lal on 18/11/2011 was the result of the injuries sustained in the
accident on 14/10/2011 is not found to be perverse or contrary to
the evidence available on record. Therefore, the argument made
by the insurance company in this regard is not found to be
acceptable.
9
14. The second argument of learned counsel for appellant – insurance
company is that though the fact of head-on-collision between the
motorcycle driven by deceased Bachcha Lal and the offending
motorcycle driven by driver Rampravesh is clear yet the Tribunal
has committed an error by not considering it a case of contributory
negligence. It is argued that in this case, the deceased also had
contributory negligence, therefore, the award should be modified
accordingly.
15. Learned counsel of the claimants side has opposed the above
argument of the insurance company and submitted that the
conclusion of the tribunal in this regard is appropriate.
16. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the deceased’s wife
Sadhana and son Shyamlal have been examined as spot witness,
who have stated that the driver of the offending vehicle,
Rampravesh Mali, was driving the motorcycle rashly and
negligently and that the accident happened due to his negligence.
On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle, Rampravesh
Mali himself has said that Bachcha Lal, with three persons on his
motorcycle, came at a high speed and hit his motorcycle from the
front. But it is noteworthy that not only has a Police report been
filed by the claimant side, but finding the negligence and rashness
of the driver of the offending motorcycle, Rampravesh in the
accident, a charge sheet has also been filed against him. The First
Information Report (Exhibit P-2) also confirms the fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle, Rampravesh Mali, was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which the accident took
place.
17. The argument of the insurance company that the deceased’s wife
Sadhana (AW-1) and son Shyamlal (AW-2) are not eye witnesses
to the incident is not acceptable. According to the final report of the
police (Exhibit P-1), son of the deceased, Shyamlal has been said
10
to be an eyewitness to the incident, which could not be refuted.
Therefore, the statement made by the witness Shyamlal about
rash and negligence on the part of Rampravesh i.e. the driver of
the offending vehicel in the accident, which is also confirmed by
the Police Charge-sheet, could not be refuted, so there is no
reason to disbelieve him.
18. Rampravesh Mali has definitely said that the accident occurred due
to a head-on-collision between the two motorcycles, which also
stands confirmed from paragraph-3 of the cross-examination of
deceased’s son Shyam Lal. But merely on the basis of the
statement that there was a head on collision between the two
motorcycles, it cannot be concluded that the deceased also
contributed to the accident. The manner in which the deceased’s
son Shyamlal has stated that the accident occurred due to the
rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle,
Rampravesh Mali, is also confirmed by the final report of the Police
(Exhibit P-1) and the First Information Report (Exhibit P-2), which
could not be refuted. In such a situation, the contributory
negligence of the deceased cannot be determined on the basis of
the mere statement of a head on collision. Therefore, the argument
of the appellant – insurance company regarding contributory
negligence is not found to be acceptable.
19. Learned counsel of the appellant – insurance company has also
argued that out of total 4 claimants in the case, 3 claimants are the
major children of the deceased. In such a situation, they cannot be
considered dependent on the deceased and 1/4th deduction made
towards personal expenses should be ½. In this regard, learned
counsel for the claimants side submits that the conclusion given by
the tribunal is appropriate.
20. From perusal of the record and the evidence presented, it becomes
clear that the insurance company has not made any clear
11
statement in its reply that apart from the wife, the remaining
claimants who are the major children of the deceased have any
separate income or are married or live separately from the
deceased. The age of claimants Hemant Kumar, Shyamlal and
Babi Bai is shown as 23, 24 and 25 years respectively. From
which, it is found that they are major but there is no evidence
regarding whether they are married, live separately or earn
separate income. No suggestion in this regard has been given
even in the cross-examination of Shyam Lal.
21. In this situation, it is found that there is no error in deducting 1/4th
of the income towards personal expenses keeping in view the total
four claimants i.e. three children along with the wife of the
deceased, as legal representatives.
22. On the basis of the above discussion, it is found that the arguments
raised by the insurance company are not acceptable. Hence, the
appeal preferred by the insurance company is hereby dismissed.
MAC No. 51/2018
23. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence brought on record, has
calculated the compensation as under:
Heads Amount
Monthly income 26783
After deduction of 1/4th of the income 20088
towards personal expenses
Annual dependency 241056
Total loss of dependency (applying 26,51,616
multiplier of 11)
Funeral Expenses 20,000
Love & affection 50,000
Total Rs.27,21,616
24. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the
12
Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while computing
compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could
have earned much more if he had not met with the accident. He
further submits that the amount given under other heads also
needs to be enhanced suitably.
25. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for
appellant/claimants and submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any
enhancement.
26. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
27. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the
compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be
just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor
a Bonanza.
28. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
29. From the record it is evident that at the time of accident the
deceased was aged about 55 years and he was working in
S.E.C.L. Katkona Colliery. As per pay slip Ex.P-10 brought on
record, the salary of the deceased was Rs.26,783/- per month.
Therefore, the Tribunal has taken Rs.26,783 as monthly income of
the deceased which in the opinion of this Court is proper.
Accordingly, annual income comes to Rs.3,21,396/-.
30. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing
compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also
considering the age of the deceased to be 55 years, future
13
prospects would be 15%. After adding 15% of the income towards
future prospects i.e. 48209.4 in round figure Rs.48209, the amount
comes to Rs.369605.
31. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory
deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for financial
year 2011-2012 was as follows:
Taxable income Income Tax
Up to 1,80,000 - Nil
1,80,001 to 5,00,000 - 10% 1,89,605 18,960.5
32. In view of the same, taxable income of the deceased comes to Rs.
1,89,605 (369605-180000) on which 10% income tax would be
applicable which is 18960.5, which is rounded off to Rs.18961.
After deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to
Rs.3,50,644.
33. There are total 4 claimants, so deduction towards personal
expenses would be 1/4th of the income as rightly held by the
Tribunal. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130,
the compensation is being recomputed as below:-
Sl. Particulars Calculation
No.
1. Monthly income of the deceased 26783
2. Yearly income 321396
3. Future prospects(15% of the 48209.4 in round figure 48209
income)
4. Total 369605
5. Income Tax 18961
14
6. Annual income (after deduction of 350644
Income Tax)
7. Personal expenses (1/4th of the 87661
income)
8. Annual loss of dependency 262983
9. Total loss of dependency (applying 262983 x 11 = 2892813
multiplier of 11)
10. Funeral Expenses 15000
11. Loss of estate 15000
12. Spousal consortium and love & 40000 x 4 = 160000
affection (Rs.40,000 to each
claimant)
Total compensation Rs.30,82,813
34. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.30,82,813/- from
which after deduction of Rs.27,21,616/- as awarded by the
Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,61,197/-.
35. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of
Rs.3,61,197/- in addition to what is already awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the
date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned
award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the
conditions shall remain intact.
36. Resultantly, MAC No.1620/2017 preferred by the Insurance
Company stands dismissed and MAC No. 51/2018 preferred by
the Claimants stands partly allowed.
37. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
“the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made
by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi
Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be
availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the
concerned area wherein the claimants reside.
15
38. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back
forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_2]
Source link