Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Minakshi Gupta And Ors vs Ajay Singh Thakur And Ors on 17 January, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.01.23
11:32:49 +0530
2025:CGHC:3254
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 820 of 2015
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Minakshi Gupta W/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 62
Years R/o Vrindavan Colony Jagdalpur Thana Bodhghat District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
2. (Deleted) Manish Kumar Gupta As Per Hon'ble Court Order
Dated 03-12-2021.
3. Mausam Kumar Gupta S/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 30
Years R/o Vrindavan Colony Jagdalpur Thana Bodhghat District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
4. Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Daulatram Thakur Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Kolchur, Shivnaguda Para, Thana Jagdalpur, District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
5. Abish Kumar Sao S/o Jhumuk Lal Sao Aged About 31 Years R/o
Paratapgunj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate
2
MAC No. 621 of 2015
1. Smt. Minakshi Gupta Wd/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 62
Years R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
2. (Deleted) Manish Kumar Gupta As Per Hon’ble Court Order
Dated 01-09-2021.
3. Mousam Kumar Gupta S/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 30
Years R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
—Appellants
Versus
1. Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Daulat Ram Thakur Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Kolchur Shivnaguda Para P.S. Jagdalpr District
Bastar Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Mahadev Ghat Para Shiv
Mandir Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh
2. Abish Kumar Sao S/o Jhumuk Lal Sao Aged About 31 Years R/o
Pratapganj Para Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh
3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch
Office At Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
17/01/2025
1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 16.04.2015
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place
Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.37/2013 awarding
compensation of Rs.4,82,544/- with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of application till its realization in favour of the
3
claimants, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals, in brief,
are that on 12.10.2012 at around 9:40 a.m., when deceased
Makhanlal Gupta was going on foot to Maa Durga Aloo Pyaaz
Bhandar, Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur to work as an accountant,
respondent Ajay Singh Thakur driving the offending Pickup
bearing registration No. OR 10 E 3715 rashly and negligently
dashed Makhanlal Gupta from behind near Chandini Chowk,
Jagdalpur, as a result of which, he suffered grievous head injury
and several other injuries on his body. He was first taken to
Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and then shifted to Ramkrishna
Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment on 23.10.2012.
Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered
against the driver at PS Kotwali, Jagdalpur (CG).
3. It was claimed that at the time of incident the deceased was aged
about 68 years and was earning Rs.5,000 per month by working
as an Accountant in Maa Durga Aloo Pyaaz Bhandar, Sanjay
Market, Jagdalpur. Due to the casual death of Makhanlal Gupta,
there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife &
children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an
application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of
Rs.12,40,000/-.
4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence bought on record,
assessed the income of deceased at Rs.3,000 per month i.e.
Rs.36,000 per annum as there was no documentary evidence
presented regarding his income. Considering the two sons as
major, the Tribunal has not considered them dependents on the
deceased. Hence, half of the income was deducted towards
personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to
Rs.18,000. Considering the age of the deceased to be 68 years,
multiplier of 5 was applied and the total loss of dependency
4
worked out to Rs.90,000/-. In addition, Rs.25,000/- has been given
under other heads and Rs.3,67,544 for medical expenses during
treatment of the deceased. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs.4,82,544/- with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour
of the claimants, against which MAC No.621/2015 has been
preferred by the claimants for enhancement. While passing the
said award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability upon the
insurance company against which MAC No.820/2015 has been
filed by the Insurance Company seeking for exoneration from the
liability.
Now, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is being
decided first.
MAC No. 820 of 2015
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits
that at the relevant time, the driver did not have a valid and
effective driving licence, therefore, there has been a breach of
policy condition and the insurance company cannot be held liable
for payment of compensation. Hence, prays for allowing the
appeal.
6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned
counsel for the respondents that in the facts and circumstances of
case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability is just and
proper and does not require any interference.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that at the time
of accident, the driver had a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
whereas he was driving a Pick-up i.e. a Light Goods Vehicle
(LGV).
9. The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of
5
license authorizing to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the
date of accident found driving the vehicle other than the type of
vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, has
been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held as under:-
“59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold
a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and
not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one
class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of
vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles,
no separate endorsement is required to drive such
vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport
vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence
can drive all the vehicles of the class including
transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as
well the post-amended position of Form 4 as
amended on 28-03-2001. Any other interpretation
would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor
vehicle” in Section 2(21) and the provisions of
Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989,
other provisions and also the forms which are in
tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms
never intended to exclude transport vehicles from
the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light
motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence
hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of
such class also and the expression in Section
10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would
include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy
passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place
in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is
fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have
discussed.
60. Thus we answer the questions which are
referred to us thus:
60.1. ”Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section
2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle
as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read
with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport
vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the
light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act
No.54 of 1994.
6
60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also
motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen
weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and
holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light
motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is
competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus,
the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed
7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the
“unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500
kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the
licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of
light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A
licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to
be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-03-
2001 in the form.
10. The driving licence of the driver has been brought on record and
exhibited as Ex.D1 & D2. Perusal of the said documents would
reflect that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving licence
to drive Light Motor Vehicles which is valid from 22.09.2008 to
21.09.2028. The accident took place on 12.10.2012. As such, the
driver had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) at the
time of accident. As per the provisions of Section 2(21) of MV Act,
all vehicles whose weight is less than 7500 Kgs. are to be treated
as ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. As per the particulars of the registration,
unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 1690 Kgs. and the
laden weight was 2950 Kgs i.e. less than 7500 Kgs. Therefore,
the offending vehicle would fall under LMV category and the
driver did have a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Even
otherwise, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the said
contention of the Insurance Company would not be sustainable.
11. Learned Tribunal while discussing this issue in paragraphs – 25 &
26 of its award came to the conclusion that there was no breach of
policy conditions and the insurance company is liable for payment
of compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal is found to be
justified and no interference is required in it.
7
12. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed.
MAC No.621 of 2015
13. As regards the appeal preferred by the claimants, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants submits that the income assessed by
the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 per month is much less than even the
minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that time and hence, it
needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the
compensation given under other heads also needs to be
enhanced suitably.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for
claimants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
and requires no further enhancement.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Though it is claimed that at the time of accident deceased was
earning Rs.5,000 per month by working as an accountant but no
documentary evidence regarding his income has been brought on
record. The accident occurred on 12.10.2012 and the minimum
wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was
Rs.4646. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at
8
Rs.4646 per month as minimum wages at that time instead of
Rs.3000 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income
comes to Rs.55,752.
19. In the case, the claimants are the wife and two sons of the
deceased. One of the sons Manish Kumar Gupta died during the
pendency of this appeal. However, the Tribunal, in para-27 of its
award, has not considered both the sons as dependents. Only the
wife of the deceased has been considered dependent on the
deceased. So deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2
of the income, as rightly held by the Tribunal. After deduction of
personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.27,876. In view of
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC
680 and also considering the age of the deceased to be 68 years
at the time of accident, the multiplier would be 5 as rightly held by
the Tribunal. Hence, after applying the said multiplier, the total loss
of dependency works out to Rs.1,39,380 (27,876 x 5). The
claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per ‘Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu reported in AIR Online 2018 SC
189, both the claimants are also entitled for Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each) towards spousal consortium and love &
affection. The amount of Rs.3,67,544 given for medical expenses
is also found to be appropriate. Accordingly, the claimants would
be entitled for compensation in the following manner:-
Heads Amount
For dependency 1,39,380
For funeral expenses 15,000
For spousal consortium, love & 80,000
affection
9
For loss of estate 15,000
For medical expenses 3,67,544
Total compensation Rs.6,16,924
20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.6,16,924/- from
which after deduction of Rs.4,82,544/- as awarded by the Tribunal,
the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,34,380/-.
21. In the result, MAC No.621/2015 preferred by the claimants is
partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced
amount of Rs.1,34,380/- in addition to what is already awarded by
the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @
6% per annum 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.
22. MAC No.820/2015 preferred by the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
23. 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.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link