Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shyam Bai vs Rajkumar @ Raju Nagvani on 9 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.15
15:11:56 +0530
2025:CGHC:16766
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1994 of 2018
Smt. Shyam Bai W/o Charan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Pewari, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil
Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
versus
1. Rajkumar @ Raju Nagvani S/o Late Bhola @ Holaram Aged
About 31 Years R/o D.N.K. Colony, Shiv Mandir Road, Pakhanjur,
Tahsil Pakhanjur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---
(Driver)
2. Brij Gopal Shel S/o Ratan Kumar Shel R/o Old Market Pakhanjur,
District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 11, Mandi
Complex Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate, on behalf of
Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpur, Advocate, on
behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate
MAC No. 42 of 2019
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Shop No.11, Mandi
Complex, Kanker Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
2
Versus
1. Smt. Shyambai W/o Charan Singh Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly
Mentioned As Shaymbai In The Impugned Award), R/o Village
Pewari, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur,
District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant)
2. Rajkumar @ Raju Nagvani S/o Late Bhola @ Holaram Aged
About 31 Years R/o Dnk Colony, Shvi Mandir Road, Pakhanjur,
Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---
(Driver)
3. Brij Gopal Shel S/o Ratan Kumar Shel R/o Old Market,
Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---
(Owner)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpur, Advocate, on
behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate, on behalf of
Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondents 2 & : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate, on behalf of
3 Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order On Board
09/04/2025
1 Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 21.08.2018
passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhanupratappur, Chhattisgarh in MACC No. 13/2018, they are
being disposed of by this common order.
2 MAC No.1994/2018 has been preferred by the claimant for
enhancement of compensation and MAC No.42/2019 has been
preferred by the Insurance Company for exonerating from the
liability of payment of compensation.
3 In the case, the accident occurred on 22.02.2016 at about 8:00 pm
3
when driver Rajkumar driving the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep
bearing registration No. CG 19 T 0571 rashly and negligently hit
the motorcycle of Dikesh Kumar Salam near Bansla cutting, PS
Bhanupratappur, as a result of which Dikesh Kumar suffered
grievous injuries and died. The claimant who is the mother of the
deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.15,26,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close
scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, calculated the
compensation as under:
Heads Amount
Monthly income 3,000
Annual income 3,000 x 12 = 36,000
Personal expenses (50% of 18,000
the income)
Net income 18,000
Loss of dependency 3,24,000
(applying multiplier of 18)
Loss of estate 10,000
Funeral Expenses 5,000
Total Rs.3,39,000
4 Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.3,39,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of
application till its realization in favour of the claimant, against which
MAC No.1994/2018 has been preferred by the claimant for
enhancement.
5 While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held the owner,
driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle jointly or
severally liable for payment of compensation. However, the
Tribunal fastened the first responsibility for payment of
compensation on the Insurance Company. It is this fastening of
liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company
against which MAC No.42/2019 has been filed by the Insurance
4
Company seeking exoneration from the liability.
MAC No.1994 of 2018
6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income
assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 per month is much less than
the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that point of time and
therefore, it needs to be enhanced suitably. He next submits that
the 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.
7 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for
appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and
requires no further enhancement.
8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9 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.
10 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.
11 Though it was claimed that at the time of accident the deceased
was earning Rs.9,000 per month from tuition work, no
documentary evidence regarding his income has been brought on
record. The accident occurred on 22.02.2016 and the minimum
5
wages of even an unskilled labour at that time was Rs.5860.
Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5860 per
month as minimum wages instead of Rs.3000 as held by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.70,320. 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, the future
prospects would be 40% of the income. After adding 40% towards
future prospect i.e. Rs.28128, the amount comes to Rs.98,448.
12 At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 21 years of
age and he was an unmarried young man. There is only one
claimant who is the mother of the deceased, so deduction towards
personal expenses would be half of the income, as rightly held by
the Tribunal. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 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 5860
2. Future prospects(40% of the income) 2344
3. Total 8204
4. Yearly income 8204 x 12 = 98448
5. Personal expenses (1/2 of the in- 49224
come)
6. Net income 49224
7. Total loss of dependency (applying 49224 x 18 =886032
multiplier of 18)
8. Funeral Expenses 15000
6
9. Loss of estate 15000
10. Love & affection 40000
Total compensation Rs.9,56,032
13 Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.9,56,032/- from
which after deduction of Rs.3,39,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal,
the enhancement would be Rs.6,17,032/-.
MAC No.42 of 2019
14 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that on the
date of accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle as he had a licence of
light motor vehicle nor did the owner have a valid permit for
operating the offending vehicle as the permit had not been
renewed. Since at the time of accident the offending vehicle was
being operated in violation of the insurance conditions, the
insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of
compensation and prayed for exonerating the insurance company
from its liability.
15 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the owner and
the driver submits that on the date of accident, the driver had a
valid driving licence. He further submits that though the permit
could not be renewed before the date of accident, the amount for
renewal had already been paid, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding
liability is just and proper and requires no interference in the same.
16 Learned counsel appearing for the claimant prays for issuance of
an order of “pay and recover” in case breach of policy condition is
found.
7
17 So far as valid and effective driving licence is concerned, the
contention of the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle
was a commercial vehicle and the deceased did not have a licence
to drive a commercial vehicle as he had an LMV licence. However,
in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663, the said contention of the Insurance
Company would not be sustainable and the said ground stands
answered in negative.
18 As regards valid permit, the owner Brij Gopal Shel himself has
admitted in his cross-examination that the permit of the offending
vehicle had expired on 19.02.2016 and for its renewal he had
made online payment on 14.02.2016 but it could not be renewed
till the date of accident. The renewal of permit was issued only on
03.03.2016. The accident occurred on 22.02.2016. As such, on
the date of accident, there was no valid permit of the offending
vehicle and it was being operated in violation of the insurance
policy condition. Therefore, the insurance Company is not liable for
payment of compensation.
19 As regards the prayer of the claimant for an order of “pay and
recover”, admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with
the Insurance Company but due to breach of policy condition the
Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability.
However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 ordering the insurance company to
pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the
time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company,
this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to pass an
order of pay and recover.
8
20 Accordingly, it is directed that the Insurance Company of the
offending vehicle shall first pay the compensation awarded to the
claimant and then recover the same jointly or severally from the
driver and the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
21 In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed. The claimant
is entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.6,17,032/- 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.
22 The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant 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 claimant resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai