Chattisgarh High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Bismatbai on 8 May, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:21335
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 28-02-2025
Judgment delivered on : 08-05-2025
MAC No. 68 of 2017
1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shivmohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh ..............As Per Claim Application- Insurer Of Vehicle Bus No.
C.G.04-E-1536,
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Bismatbai Wd/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years
2 - Ku. Rukhmani Sahu D/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 17 Years
3 - Mukesh Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 6 Years
Resp. no. 2 and 3 is minor and hence representing through their mother
respondent no.1 Bismatbai, All R/o At present - Akash Nagar, Rawan
Bhatha, Raipur (CG)
4 – Dindayal Sahu S/o Late Baisakhu Ram Sahu, Aged About 60 Years
5 – Smt. Susheela Bai W/o Dindayal Sahu, Aged About 56 Years
Both R/o Village Aurethi Police Station Simga, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh ……………..Claimants
2
6 – Khursheed Khan S/o Mahboob Khan, R/o Masjid Para, Lakhanpur, Police
Station Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ……………Driver Of Vehicle
Bus No. C.G.-04-E-1536.
7 – M/s Vijay Ingole And Sons, Shri Sai Baba Travels, Pandri, Police Station
Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh …………….Owner Of Vehicle Bus No.C.G.-04-E-
1536.
— Respondents
MAC No. 1656 of 2016
1 – Bismat Bai W/o Late Gurdayal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years
2 – Ku. Rukhmani Sahu D/o Late Gurudyal Sahu, Aged About 17 Years,
minor
3 – Mukesh Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 6 Years, minor
Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minor, through : natural guardian mother Bismat Bai
(Appellant No.1)
All are R/o Akash Nagar, Rawanbhantha, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
4 – Deendayal Sahu S/o Late Baisakhu Ram Sahu, Aged About 60 Years
5 – Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Deendayal Sahu, Aged About 56 Years
Appellant no. 4 & 5 are R/o Village Aurethi, Police Station Simga, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Now Balodabazaar-Bhatapara)
—Appellants/claimants
Versus
1 – Khurshid Khan S/o Mahbub Khan, Aged About 52 Years R/o Masjid Para,
Lakhanpur, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh …………….Driver Of The Offending Vehicle.
3
2 – M/s Vijay Ingole And Sons, Shri Sai Baba Travels, Pandri, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh …………….Owner Of The Offending Vehicle.
3 – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh …………….Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle.
--- Respondents
For Appellant in MAC: Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Advocate
No.68/2017 &
Respondent No.3 in
MAC No.1656/2016.
For Appellants in MAC: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
No.1656/2016 &
Respondents No. 1 to
5 in MAC No.68/2017.
For others respondents : None though served.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
CAV Judgment
Since both these appeals arise out of the award dated 21.10.2016
passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short “the
Tribunal”) in MACT No. 56/2012, they are being disposed of by this common
judgment. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.15,92,424/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant
No.3/insurance company jointly and severally along with non-applicant
No.1/driver and non-applicant No.2/owner.
02. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”), on 13.11.2008 at about 5.30 am Gurudayal
Sahu was going from Village-Aaurethi to SKS Steel Pvt. Ltd. Company,
4
Siltara on a motorcycle in connection with his work. However, near village
Bhumiya main road, non-applicant No.1 Khurshid Khan driving the vehicle
Bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E 1536 (hereinafter referred to as “the
offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner dashed his motorcycle
from behind as a result of which Gurudayal Sahu suffered grievous injuries
and succumbed to the same on the spot. On information being received, the
police registered offence under Section 304A of IPC against non-applicant
No.1.
The claimants, who are widow, children and parents of the deceased,
pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was 40 years of age,
working as Senior Chemist and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-. Hence they
being totally dependent upon the income of the deceased claimed
compensation of Rs.41.50 lacs under various heads.
03. Non-applicants No.1 & 2 in their joint written statement contended that
on 3.11.2008 no accident was caused by the offending vehicle. The police
filed a forged and fabricated charge sheet against non-applicant No.1. The
offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore,
liability, if any, of paying compensation is of non-applicant No.3.
04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement
pleaded that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not insured
with it. The offending vehicle was not involved in this accident. The deceased
was not having any driving licence and the accident occurred due to
negligence on the part of the deceased. The claimants are not dependent
upon the deceased. It was further pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was
driving the offending vehicle with passengers beyond the prescribed sitting
5
capacity without fitness certificate and permit. Therefore, there being breach
of policy conditions also the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation.
05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal
framed 05 issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence these
appeals by the insurance company and the claimants.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in MAC
No.68/2017 would contend that learned Tribunal ought to have conducted
proper enquiry under Section 168/169 of the Act of 1988. It appears that the
deceased himself was liable for the accident. The FIR was lodged against
unknown vehicle and that the offending vehicle was not insured with the
appellant/insurance company on the date of accident. He would submit that
no notice regarding the accident was sent to the appellant under the
provision of Sections 158(6) and 134C of the Act of 1988 and hence it was
not within the knowledge of the appellant that the offending vehicle was
involved in the said accident. The insurance company sent a notice to the
owner for cancellation of insurance policy and it was cancelled due to
dishonour of cheque. This apart, the Tribunal has awarded excessive
compensation in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the
same is liable to be reduced suitably.
07. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1656/2016
supporting the impugned award to the extent of fixing liability on the non-
applicant No.3/insurance company, would argue that the learned Tribunal
has committed illegality in not allowing the entire claim of the claimants in
6
view of unrebutted evidence adduced by not properly assessing the income
of the deceased and granting a meager amount under the conventional
heads. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be modified and the
compensation be enhanced suitably.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
09. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, learned Tribunal
framed five issues for adjudication. Issue No.1 reads as under:
dza वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष
1. क्या घटना दिनांक 03.11.2008 को सुबह 05:45 बजे ग्राम-भूमिया मेन रोड “प्रमाणित”
के पास अनावेदक क-1 ने अनावेदक क-2 के स्वामित्व एवं अनावेदक क-3 के
पक्ष बीमित वाहन क. सी.जी. 04 ई. 1536 को तेजी एवं लापरवाही पूर्वक
चलाकर गुरुदयाल साहू के मोटरसायकल को ठोकर मार दिया, जिसके
फलस्वरूप गुरुदयाल साहू को गंभीर चोट आई. जिससे घटना स्थल पर ही
उसकी मृत्यु हो गई?
10. It is clear from the records that claimant Bismat Bai (AW-1) exhibited
all the documents of criminal case in her evidence and stated that she filed
certified copy of criminal case, final report Ex.P/1, FIR (Ex.P/2), Merg
Intimation Ex.P/3, Inquest Ex.P/4, Postmortem report Ex.P/5, Seizure Memo
Ex.P/6, Arrest Memo Ex.P/7, driving licence of Gurudayal etc.
AW-2 Akshay Kumar, who is eyewitness to the incident, states that
driver of bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E 1536 of Saibaba Travels by
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of
7Gurudayal Sahu. He remained firm in his cross-examination. It is also clear
that driver and owner did not adduce oral or documentary evidence before
the learned Tribunal. Hence in view of the specific pleadings of the claimants
and the evidence adduced in support thereof, learned Tribunal rightly
decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and held that it is driver
Khurshid Khan, Non-applicant No.1, who was responsible for the accident
resulting in death of Gurudayal Sahu.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company also objected
that the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. In
this regard, insurance company examined its Law Officer namely Pankaj
Kumar as NAW-1 who states that vehicle bearing No. CG 04 E 1536 was
insured with his office and the insurance policy bearing No.OG-09-2303-
1812-00000186 was issued which was valid from 28 th September, 2008 to
27th September, 2009. He states that cheque deposited by Rajesh Kumar
Agrawal of District Cooperative Bank got dishonoured due to insufficiency of
amount in the account of the drawer and information regarding dishonour of
cheque was received by the company from the Central Bank. Cheque Return
Memo is Ex.D/1 and copy of the information regarding dishonour of cheque
given by the insurance company to the RTO and financial company is
Ex.D/2. In cross-examination this witness admits that he cannot tell as to
when the cheque given by non-applicant No.2 towards premium was
deposited by the insurance company and no such acknowledgment is filed in
this case. He only filed cheque dishonour letter sent by the insurance
company to non-applicant No.2 as Ex.D/4.
12. Bhagvendra Singh NAW-2, Assistant Accountant in Renuka Nagarik
Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ambikapur, examined on behalf of non-applicant
8No.2, filed certified copy of bank account statement of Rajesh Agrawal as
Ex.D/6 for a period from 1.9.2008 to 30.11.2008. He states that cheque
No.18605 issued by Rajesh Agrawal was never produced before his bank
and as such, no question of its dishonour arises.
13. NAW-3 Chandrashekhar Reddy, Manager in Standard Charted Bank,
Bandra-Kurla, Mumbai, examined on behalf of the insurance company also
states that the cheque deposited by the insurance company got dishnoured
due to insufficiency of amount in the account of the drawer. NAW-4 Sandeep
Kumar, Sr. Manager of Central Bank of India states in examination-in-chief
that the cheque got dishonoured at the bank but in cross-examination admits
that the Cheque Return Memo of Ex.D/8 was issued by his branch office.
14. Learned Tribunal also minutely appreciated all the documents filed by
non-applicants No. 2 & 3 i.e. owner and insurer and found that the insurance
company did not send information related to the offending vehicle to RTO
related but sent information pertaining to vehicle No. CG 15 CA 9196 and the
insurance company sent notice after the date of accident. Admittedly, the
accident occurred on 13.11.2008 whereas the insurance company sent
notice for cancellation of insurance on 27.11.2008. In view of aforesaid oral
and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly rejected all the
objections of the insurance company and fastened liability upon it jointly and
severally along with non-applicants No. 1 & 2. This Court finds no illegality or
infirmity in the findings so recorded by learned Tribunal.
15. As regards quantum of compensation, considering the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the claimants with regard to age and
income, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed age of the
9deceased as 42 years and his income as Rs.9558/- per month. Looking to
the number of dependents i.e. five, age of the deceased and the nature of his
job, the Tribunal was justified in making 1/4th deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, applying multiplier of 14 and granting
30% addition to his annual income towards future prospect. However, the
amount awarded towards the conventional heads being not in accordance
with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130, it needs to be enhanced accordingly. Thus, the
claimants are held entitled for compensation as under:
Sl. Heads Calculation
No. (in rupees)
01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.9,558/- Rs.1,14,696/- per
per month. annum
02. 30% of (i) above to be added towards Rs.1,49,105/-
future prospects.
(Rs.1,14,696 + Rs.34,409)
03. 1/4th deduction towards personal and Rs.1,11,829/-
living expenses of the deceased
(Rs.1,49,105-37,276)
04. Multiplier of 14 to be applied Rs.15,65,606/-
05. Towards loss of spousal consortium to Rs.40,000/-
claimant No.1
Towards loss of parental consortium to Rs.80,000/-
claimants No. 2 & 3 each @ Rs.40,000/-
10
Towards loss of filial consortium to Rs.80,000/-
claimants No. 4 & 5 each @ Rs.40,000/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.17,95,606/-
Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,92,424/-, after
deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled
for additional compensation of Rs.2,03,182/- (Rupees Two lacs three
thousand one hundred and eighty two only) with simple interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the terms
and conditions in the impugned award shall remain intact.
16. In the result,
MAC No.68/2017 filed by the appellant/insurance company being
devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.
MAC No.1656/2016 preferred by the appellants/claimants is allowed in
part with modification in the impugned award to the extent indicated
above.
Sd/
Digitally signed
by MOHD
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD AKHTAR
KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN 2025.05.08
15:46:23
+0530
Judge
Khan
[ad_1]
Source link