[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Savitri Bai vs Vyashnarayan Chakradhari on 27 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28700
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2135 of 2019
1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.4,
Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda, P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Mohit Sahu S/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother
And Natural Guardian (Appl. No.1), R/o Ward No.4, Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda,
P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ku. Roushni W/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Mother
And Natural Guardian (Appl. No.1), R/o Ward No.4, Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda,
P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........(Applicants), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
1 - Vyashnarayan Chakradhari S/o Madanlal R/o Sant Kanear Ram Ward No.3,
Nevera, Village Jewara, P.S.- Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver
Of Truck No. C.G.-04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ramesh Sharma S/o Lt. Gulabchand Sharma R/o House No. 187, Gandhi Ward
Nevera, P.S.- Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............(Owner Of Truck No.
C.G. 04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Magma H.D.E. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge/competent
Officer Magma H.D.E. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office No. 501 And 509-12, 5th
Floor, D.B. City, Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan,
Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.
04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2
MAC No. 1670 of 2018
1 – Magma H.D.I. Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. Through In-Charge
Officer/competent Officer Magma H.D.I. Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. Office No.
501 And 509-12, 5th Floor, D.B. City, Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Blocj No. 9,
Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh………….(Insurer
Of Truck No. Cg-04-Jd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Appellant
Versus
1 – Smt. Savitri Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4,
Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh…………
(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Mohit Sahu S/o Late Dhaniram Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Minor Hence
Representing His Mother Smt. Savitri Bai, R/o Ward No. 4, Guru Ghasidas Nagar,
Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh…………(Claimant), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 – Ku. Roshni D/o Late Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Hence
Representing Her Mother Smt. Savitri Bai, R/o Ward No. 4, Guru Ghasidas Nagar,
Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh…………(Claimant), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 – Vyasnarayan Chakradhari S/o Madanlal R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward No. 3,
Neora, Thana Neora, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Truck No. Cg-04-Jd-
2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 – Ramesh Sharma S/o Late Gulabchand Sharma R/o House No. 187, Gandhi
Ward, Neora, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. Cg-
04-Jd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
MAC No. 2135/2019
For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate
MAC No. 1670/2018
For Appellant : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. F.S.Khare, Advocate
3
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
27/06/2025
1. As both the appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, one by the claimants seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation and another by the Insurance Company
challenging the liability fastened upon it, arising out the same award
dated 24.07.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No 73/2016,
both the appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this
common order.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 19.07.2015 at about 06:30 A.M.,
one truck bearing registration no. CG 04 ZD 2860 driven by the Non-
Applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently met with an accident and over
turned. In the said accident, Sita Sahu who was standing on the side
of the road came under the truck and died on spot. The claimants
being daughter-in-law and grand children of the deceased have filed
the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 14,80,000/- pleading therein that
on the date of accident, the deceased was doing the business of
vegetable seller and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The
Respondents No. 1 & 2 (i.e. the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle) submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts
pleaded in the claim application and further pleaded that on the date of
accident, the Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessed with valid and
4
effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with the Non-
Applicant No. 3.
3. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted its reply
objecting to the factual pleadings made in the claim application more
particularly, with regard to the nature of occupation and income
pleaded in the claim application. It is also pleaded that the vehicle was
being driven in breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy as there is
no valid permit and fitness of vehicle and further, that the driver was
not possessed with the valid and effective driving license.
4. The Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by the respective parties have allowed the
claim application in part and recorded a finding that the Insurance
Company failed to prove that the vehicle was driven in breach of
conditions of insurance policy. Occupation and income of the
deceased was not found proved. The accident was a result of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Non-Applicant No. 1,
allowed the claim application in part while assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,17,200/-
to the claimants, fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and
severally to satisfy the award.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants would submit that the
motor accidental death of deceased Sita Sahu is not in dispute.. He
however, further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in
assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month observing
that the occupation of the deceased was of Garbage Collector
considering the statement recorded by police of one of the witnesses.
He contended that merely production of the document prepared by
5
police will in itself not a proof of contents thereof, unless and until it is
proved in accordance with law. He next contended that even if the
Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to
prove the nature of occupation and income of the decease, the Claims
Tribunal ought to have considered the occupation and nature of work
of the deceased to be one of the Unskilled Labourer and could have
assessed the income taking note of the wages as fixed by the
competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevailing at
the time of accident. He also pointed out that the amount of
compensation awarded on other conventional heads is also on lower
side.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submissions
made by the counsel for the applicant/claimants and would submit that
the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does
not call for any interference. She further submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal even after recording a finding that on the date of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed with a
Learner’s License decided the issue of breach of policy conditions in
negative overlooking Rule 3 of Rules, 1989. Referring to Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules, 1989), it is submitted that a person holding a Learner’s License
of a particular class of vehicle can drive the said vehicle subject to
compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. While driving the vehicle by
the person holding the Learner’s License, one person should
mandatorily accompanied with the person driving the vehicle.
7. In the case at hand, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has
not brought any evidence or pleadings in this regard. Leaned Claims
6
Tribunal has erroneously referred to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of New Indian Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and Ors. reported in (1996) AIR 1150
and the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran
Singh & Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1531 has decided the issue
whether the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy
conditions at the time of accident in negative. The said finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous, hence, it be set-
aside and the Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability
under the policy. She submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is on that very ground, hence, the said appeal be allowed.
8. Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the owner and driver would oppose
the submission of both the counsels. Firstly, he submits that the
amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call
for any interference. While refuting the submissions of the counsel for
the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company would submit that the
police during the course of investigation seized the copy of Learner’s
License from possession of the owner along with other relevant
documents. The Insurance Company was aware with regard to the
type of license which was seized from the possession of the Non-
Applicant No. 2/owner and the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver. The
Learner’s License issued by the competent authority under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as the Act, 1988) is valid, unless and until, it is proved that
the license seized or produced is fake. No such evidence is available
on record and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in
7
recording a finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove the
breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
claim case.
10. I will consider the grounds raised in the appeal i.e. MAC No.
1670/2018 filed by the Insurance Company with respect to the breach
of conditions of the insurance policy first.
11. It is not in dispute that after accident, police seized the documents
including the license of the Non-Applicant No. 1 from possession of the
Non-Applicant No. 2 owner of the offending vehicle. In the seizure
memo, there is mention that the police seized the Learner’s License in
the name of Non-Applicant No. 1 which was effective from 22.01.2015
to 21.07.2015 issued from the Regional Transport Office, District –
Raipur. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle has not disputed
the fact that at the time of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1 was
possessing the Learner’s License. On the date of accident 19.07.2015,
the Learner’s License was effective.
12. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle after receipt of notice
from the learned Claims Tribunal has caused their appearance,
submitted reply to the claim application in which, they have only
pleaded that the Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and
effective driving license. The Learner’s License is issued under the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1988. Chapter 2 of the Rules, 1989
deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. It provides as to how
the person holding the effective Learner’s License can drive the class
of vehicles as mentioned therein. Under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules, 1989
there is clear mention that the persons holding effective Learner’s
8
License to be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving
license to drive the vehicle and such an instructor is sitting in such a
position to control or stop the vehicle.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh (Supra) has
considered the effect of the Learner’s License and observed thus:-
“93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant
of learner’s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2),
Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner’s licence is,
thus, also a licence within the meaning of the
provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said
that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner
subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he
would not be a person who is not “duly licensed”
resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid
the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a
person holding a learner’s licence is not entitled to
drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in
the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be
driven by a person holding a learner’s licence, the
same would run counter to the provisions of Section
149(2) of the said Act..
94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also
for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner’s
licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for
restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section
7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner’s
licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and
conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides
for renewal of driving licence. Learner’s licences are
granted under the Rules framed by the Central
Government or the State Governments in exercise of their
rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the
learner’s licences granted in terms of the statute. A person
holding learner’s licence would, thus, also come within the
purview of “duly licensed” as such a licence is also
9
granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law
that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such
rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the
main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law
that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be
made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No
provision should be considered as surplusage .”
14. In para 94, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the rules validly
framed become part of the statute. Such rules are therefore, required
to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled
principle of law that for the interpretation of a statue, an attempt must
be made to give effect to all the provision under the Rule. Copy of the
Insurance Policy is also available on record which is valid from
17.10.2014 till 15.06.2015. Under the column of persons or classes of
persons entitled to drive and under the column of goods carriage, it
has further mentioned that any person including insured can drive the
vehicle, provided that such person, holds an effective driving license at
the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining
such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective
Learner’s License may drive the vehicle when not use for the transport
of passengers at the time of accident and that such person satisfy the
requirements of the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989.
15. The insurance policy issued by the company in favour of the insured is
a contract between the two, the policy was issued with a condition that
if the vehicle is being driven by a person holding the effective
Learner’s License, then, there must be compliance of Rule 3 of the
Rules, 1989. In the case at hand, the owner of the offending vehicle
10
was well aware of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having the driving license issued under Section 10 (1), but was
holding Learner’s License issued under Section 8 as the Learner’s
License was seized from his possession. However, he did not take
care of the compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989.
16. For the aforementioned, provision under the Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of
the Rules, 1989, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal
erred in shifting the burden upon the Insurance Company to prove that
at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. In absence of any pleading on the part of
Non-Applicants No.1 & 2, the driver and owner that at the time of
accident, the person possessing the effective license issued under
Section 10 (1) is sitting beside the driver holding the Learner’s
License, onus will not shift upon the insurance company to prove
otherwise.
17. So far as the appeal bearing MAC No. 2135/2019 filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is
concerned, the counsel for the appellant/claimants has made two fold
submissions. First, with regard to the assessment of income on lower
side and second, meagre award of compensation awarded on other
conventional heads.
18. So far as the first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that
the income has been assessed on lower side is concerned, perusal of
the records of the claim case would show that the claimants failed to
prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased to be
vegetable seller, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as pleaded by placing
admissible piece of evidence in the record before Claims Tribunal.
11
Even, there is no specific evidence and proof in record with regard to
the nature of occupation of the deceased to be of Garbage Collector.
In absence of proof of nature of occupation and the income of the
deceased, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed on
notional basis, considering the factors like the price index, cost of
living, wage structure and may also take the help of the minimum-
wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948. The learned Claims Tribunal could also have taken note of
the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the
Minimum Wages Act,1948. In the record, there is no material to
suggest the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of
residence of the deceased and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess
the nature of occupation of the deceased as Unskilled Labourer and
assessing the income of the deceased taking the help of the minimum-
wages which is Rs. 5787/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.
19. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 10% of the assessed
income towards the future prospects, made deduction of 1/3rd and
applied multiplier of 11 which does not call for any interference. The
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of
estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Learned Claims
Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards
the loss of consortium. The Appellant/Claimants No. 1 is the daughter-
in-law and is entitled for loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu
Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. It is ordered accordingly.
12
20. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the
amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
21. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.5,787/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 55 years
old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be
enhanced by 10% towards future prospects, which comes to
Rs.6,362.7/- (5787+575.7). Thus annual income of the deceased for
the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.76,352.4/-
(6,362.7 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting
1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to
Rs.50,901.6/- (76,352.4 – 25450.8). By applying multiplier of 11, as
applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss
of dependency would come to Rs.5,59,917.6/- (50,901.6 x 11).
Besides this, Appellants No. 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-
each towards parental consortium. Further, they are also entitled for
Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
22. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,29,917.6/-
(5,59,917.6 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim
application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the
impugned award shall remain intact.
23. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as
compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation
as calculated above.
13
24. In the result, the appeal MAC No. 2135/2019 filed by the claimant is
allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent
indicated above. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing
MAC No. 1670/2018 is dismissed.
25. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-d/–/-/——–/–/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
[ad_2]
Source link