Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ranu Verma vs Rohit Mishra on 25 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
2025:CGHC:36088
Digitally
signed by NAFR
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ALI
MAC No. 1913 of 2019
1. Smt. Ranu Verma W/o Late Narendra Verma Aged About 28
Years R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura, Thana Khamtarai,
District Raipur (CG)
2. Himanshu Verma S/o Late Narendra Verma Aged About 2
Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Runu
Verma Appellant No. 1. R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura,
Thana Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
3. Lavyansh Verma S/o Narendra Verma Aged About 8 Years
Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Runu Verma
Appellant No. 1. R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura, Thana
Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants-claimants
versus
1. Rohit Mishra S/o Ramnand Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Mohbhatha, Thana Bemetara, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh. Hall Mukam Rajdhani Travels, Modhapara
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending
Vehicle Bus No. CG04/EA/0203).
2. Smt. Shamima Bano W/o Moh. Vashim Raja, R/o Rajdhani
Travels, Behind Of Video Wald, Bombay Market Modhapara
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The
Offending Vehicle Bus No. CG04/EA/0203).
3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch
Manager, Divisional Office No. 2, Neevan Bima Marg
2
Commercial Campus Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (CG).
(Insurer of offending vehicle Bus No. CG04/EA/0203).
4. Smt. Rameshwari Verma W/o Late Mattulal Verma Aged
About 50 Years R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura, Thana
Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Dinesh Verma S/o Late Mattulal Verma Aged About 18 Years
R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura, Thana Khamtarai, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singraul and Ms. Shalini Jangde,
Advocates
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None.
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
R. Pradhan, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
25/7/2025
1. Today the matter is listed for orders on default of not affixing
requisite fixed court fee of Rs.15/- in cross-appeal filed on
behalf of respondent No.4 and 5.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4
and 5 submits that she may be permitted to affix requisite
court fee during the course of the day and appeal may be
heard finally at the motion stage itself.
3. Learned counsel for appellants as also respondent No.3 do
not oppose the above submission of learned counsel for
respondent No.4 and 5.
3
4. Consequently, the oral prayer of learned counsel for
respondent No.4 and 5 is allowed. She is permitted to affix
requisite court fee in cross-appeal in the Court itself during
the course of the day.
5. Matter is also listed for consideration on I.A. No.1/2024,
application filed by respondent No.4 and 5 for condoning the
delay in preferring cross-appeal.
6. On due consideration of pleadings in I.A. No.1/2024 and
submission of learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5,
which is not opposed by learned counsel for respective
respondents, I.A. No.1/2024 is allowed and delay is
condoned.
7. With the consent of the parties, the appeal and cross-appeal
are heard finally at motion stage.
8. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by learned 2nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of learned 1st Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Riapur (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal’) vide award dated 9.9.2019 in Claim Case
No.424/2018. Respondent No.4 and 5 have also filed cross-
appeal seeking enhancement in quantum of compensation.
9. Briefly stated facts of the case are that claimants filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
4
(for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation of
Rs.70,50,000/- against the death of Narendra Verma in a road
traffic accident dated 10.6.2018 caused by bus bearing
registration mark CG04-EA-0203, driven rashly and
negligently by its driver (non-applicant No.1), near village
Dondekala Housing Board Colony, Raipur. Non-applicant
No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle did not
appear before the Claims Tribunal and as such they were
proceeded ex-parte. The claim application was resisted by
the non-applicant No.3 inter alia on the ground of breach of
policy conditions i.e. at the time of accident, there was valid
permit and fitness in favour of offending vehicle and even it
was driven by non-applicant No.1, who was not having
effective driving license.
10. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence, oral and
documentary, brought on record by respective parties,
allowed claim application in part, awarded a sum of
Rs.17,83,600/- as compensation, exonerated the insurance
company from its liability to indemnify the owner on the
ground of breach of condition of insurance policy i.e. non-
availability of valid permit, and held the driver and owner of
offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation with interest
to claimants.
11.Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims
5
Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased at Rs.8,000/-
per month. Deceased was driver by profession and used to
earn Rs.36,000/- per month, which is evident from taxi
agreement Ex.P-8. In this circumstance, the income of
deceased as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower
side. He next contended that lump sum compensation
awarded under other heads like funeral expenses etc. is not
in accordance with the law settled in this regard. Hence he
prays that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced
suitably. He further submits that the insurance policy was
valid on the date of accident, exoneration of insurance
company is on the ground of not having valid permit,
therefore, in such circumstance, the Claims Tribunal while
exonerating the insurance company should have issued ‘pay
and recover’ direction.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 adopted the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants for
enhancement of quantum of compensation and submitted
that the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering respondent
No.5, brother of deceased, as dependent on the deceased.
She submits that respondent No.5, at the time of accident,
was student, his father was not alive and deceased was
taking care of him.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-
6
Insurance Company would submit that as the offending
vehicle was plied without valid permit, the Claims Tribunal
held that there is clear violation of the policy conditions and
accordingly exonerated the insurance company from paying
compensation and fastened the liability on the driver and
owner of the vehicle. This finding of Claims Tribunal is based
on proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not
call for any interference. She further submits that when
insurance company has no liability, it cannot be directed to
first pay and then recover the same from the owner of
offending vehicle.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
15. As regards the income of deceased, as per pleadings and
evidence of claimants, deceased was owner-cum-driver of
Tata Ace vehicle, he entered into ‘taxi agreement’ with Dainik
Bhaskar, Raipur for transportation of newspapers bundles from
Raipur to Balodabazar and it was agreed under said
agreement that deceased will be paid Rs.36,000/- per month
for the said work. The Claims Tribunal though considered said
agreement but recorded that payment of amount as mentioned
in agreement is inclusive of permanent charges and flexible
charges. The Claims Tribunal also held that vehicle used for
transporting daily newspapers was though registered in the
name of deceased but it was financed and he was also paying
7
installments of loan against said vehicle. Despite all this, the
Claims Tribunal erroneously determined income of deceased
as Rs.8,000/- per month. For assessing income of deceased,
the Courts/Tribunals are required to consider the nature of
occupation in which deceased was engaged. Indisputably, in
case at hand, the deceased was driver of four wheeler, which
comes within the category of skilled worker, and engaged in
transportation of bundles of daily newspapers Dainik Bhaskar
from Raipur to Balodabazar everyday. Even if the vehicle was
got financed by deceased and he was paying monthly
installments, he was owner of vehicle and after some time
vehicle would be freed from loan. Even otherwise, considering
that deceased was working as driver, his income ought to have
been assessed accordingly, keeping in mind that deceased
was not only owner but also driver of a four wheeler owned by
him, which falls within the category of skilled worker. Accident
occurred on 10.6.2018 and during that period, minimum wage
fixed by the Competent Authority for skilled worker was
Rs.10,090/- per month. However, keeping in mind that the
deceased also owned the four wheeler, though financed, I find
it appropriate to fix monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/-, which is one-third of the amount agreed under the
agreement dated 27.3.2018. It is ordered accordingly.
16. Considering the age of deceased and number of dependent
8
members, addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction
of one-fourth towards personal expenses of deceased and
multiplier of 17 applied by Claims Tribunal is correct and the
same does not call for any interference.
17. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal
awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- under other
heads i.e. funeral expenses etc. There has been a thumb rule
in this aspect. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pra-52 of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has opined that
reasonable figures on conventional head namely ‘loss of
estate‟, ‘loss of consortium‟ and ‘funeral expenses‟ should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively
(Rs.70,000/-). Further, in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported
in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the
concept of consortium and held that claimants being
widow/husband is entitled to spousal consortium, children to
parental consortium and parents to filial consortium at the rate
of Rs.40,000/- each. Under these circumstances, award of
lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- under other
conventional head i.e. funeral expenses etc., is erroneous and
requires to be reassessed as per the law settled by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram
9
(supra).
18. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4
and 5 that Claims Tribunal erred in not treating respondent
No.5-brother of deceased, to be dependent of deceased is
concerned, though it is claimed that respondent No.5 was 18
years of age on the date of accident and was a student.
However, no documentary evidence regarding education of
respondent No.5 has been placed on record for consideration.
As respondent No.5 was major at the time of accident, he
cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased to
become eligible for grant of compensation, more so when the
deceased was survived by a widow aged about 28 years,one
son aged about 02 years and a daughter aged about 02
months. Hence, there is no infirmity in the finding of Claims
Tribunal refusing to consider respondent No.5 as dependent of
deceased and it is maintained.
19. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable.
20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.12,000/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total
income comes to Rs.16,800/-. Thus, annual income of
deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes
to Rs.2,01,600/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased
10
and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency
would come to Rs.1,51,200/-. By applying multiplier of 17, as
applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency,
total loss of dependency would come to Rs.25,70,400/-.
Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 & 3
are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental
consortium and respondent No.4 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for
filial consortium. They are also entitled for a sum of
Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.
However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of compensation under
the aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses
and loss of estate, is to be increased by 10% after every three
years, which will make the compensation payable to
claimants under the head of loss of consortium as
Rs.44,000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as
Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as
Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.27,79,400/- The enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Out of
the enhanced amount of compensation, respondent No.4 will
be entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest.
11
Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall
remain intact. Any amount already paid to claimants/
appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total
amount of compensation as calculated above.
21. Coming to submission of learned counsel for appellants that
since the breach of insurance policy was on account of not
having valid permit, therefore, a direction for pay and recover
ought to have been issued against Insurance Company.
22. The doctrine of pay and recover in cases of no valid permit
has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa
Bharathamma and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 and
it was observed thus:-
“13. The residual question is what would be the
appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial
object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer
to satisfy the award, though in law it has no
liability. In some cases the insurer has been given
the option and liberty to recover the amount from
the insured. For the purpose of recovering the
amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not
be required to file a suit. It may initiate a
proceeding before the concerned Executing Court
as if the dispute between the insurer and the
owner was the subject matter of determination
before the Tribunal and the issue is decided
against the owner and in favour of the insurer.
Before release of the amount to the claimants,
12owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish
security for the entire amount which the insurer
will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle
shall be attached, as a part of the security.
If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take
assistance of the concerned Regional Transport
Authority. The Executing Court shall pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law as to
the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall
make payment to the insurer. In case there is any
default it shall be open to the Executing Court to
direct realization by disposal of the securities to
be furnished or from any other property or
properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the
insured. In the instant case considering the
quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of
the insurer to decide whether it would take steps
for recovery of the amount from the insured.”
23. In the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG
General Insurance Company Limited and others reported
in (2018) 7 SCC 558 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
“We are disposed to think so in view of the series of
exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said
situations cannot be equated with absence of licence
or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of
vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of
carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the
principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and
Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be
applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer
13had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no
permit. It does not require the wisdom of the
“Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature
is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has
been brought on record by the insured to prove that he
had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the
onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the
tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the
insurer was required to pay the compensation amount
to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that
the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from
the owner and the driver. The said directions are in
consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh
(supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover
principle.”
24. In the light of above rulings, if facts of the case at hand are
considered, the insurance policy was not disputed.
Exoneration of Insurance Company was ordered only on the
ground that there was no valid permit. In these
circumstances, I find it appropriate to issue direction of pay
and recover to Insurance Company. Consequently,
respondent No.3-Insurance Company being insurer of
offending vehicle is directed to first pay the entire amount of
compensation to claimants and thereafter, will be at liberty to
recover the amount of compensation so deposited, from
respondents No.1 and 2 in same execution proceeding as per
direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in AIR
14
2004 SC 1631.
25. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance
Company would submit that respondent No.3 is not aware as
to what amount of compensation has already been deposited
before the Claims Tribunal by owner of offending vehicle and
as such, it is not crystal clear as on date that how much
amount of compensation is to be deposited. Respondent
No.3 Insurance Company will be at liberty to ascertain
aforesaid fact from the Claims Tribunal and thereafter deposit
the entire balance amount with interest before the Claims
Tribunal within a period of three months.
26.In the result, appeal as also cross-appeal are allowed in part
and the impugned award stands modified to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-