Anjali vs Dharmendra @ Dhhalu And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5194 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            MAC No. 140 of 2015

    Anjali W/o Late Dulal Ieach, Aged About 43 Years (Mother), R/o
     Village Post Office Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

  1. Dharmendra @ Dhhalu S/o Damru Sahu R/o Village Pahadi Chouk
     Lodhipara Gudhiyari Raipur Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  2. Kishan Lal S/o Shuklal Janghel, R/o Lodhipara Gudhiyari Shyam
     Station Road Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

  3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch
     Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv
     Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Shabha Road, Pandri Raipur, C.G.

  4. Shikha W/o Late Gopal Ieach, Aged About 20 Years, R/o P.O, Mana
     Distt. Raipur C.G.

                                                         ---- Respondents

For Appellant         :       Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate
For Insurance Company :       Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate



                   Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                          Judgement On Board


17.08.2022

1. Present is a claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle

Act. The challenge in the present appeal is the award dated

25.09.2007 passed in Claim Case No.50/2007 by the 12th Additional

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Raipur.

2. The claimants were the mother, father and widow of the deceased

Gopal Ieach. Gopal Ieach, aged around 25 years, met with an

accident on 02.03.2006. The deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo

Jeep bearing registration No.CG04/H/1327 driven by respondent no.1

Dharmendra, owned by respondent no.2 Kishan Lal and insured with

respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is said

that when the deceased was travelling in the said Tata Sumo Jeep, it

hit a stationary truck bearing registration No.CG04G 4377 near village

Urai, Dabri, district Raipur. The matter was reported at Police Station

Chhuria, district Rajnandgaon and an offence under Section 279, 337,

338 & 304A of IPC was registered.

3. The aforementioned claimants filed a claim application which was

registered as Claim Case No.50/2007 before the 12th Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Raipur. After the pleadings were

complete and the evidences were recorded, the Claim Tribunal vide

its award dated 25.09.2007 awarded Rs.4,28,000/- with interest @

7.5% from the date of application till the date of actual payment. The

amount was equally distributed between the parents and the widow of

the deceased. Since the widow thereafter has lost touch with the

parents, the instant appeal has been filed by the mother as the father

meanwhile after the award, has expired. The widow has now been

brought as a respondent in the present appeal.

4. Assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for appellant submits

that the Tribunal has quantified the compensation taking the income

of the deceased on the lower side. It is contended that the deceased

Gopal was in fact a skilled worker working as a Marble Mistri and at

the relevant point of time he was earning Rs.200/- per day. Therefore,

his monthly income was Rs.6,000/- whereas without any basis the

learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-

per month i.e. Rs.100/- per day. It is the further contention of the

learned counsel for appellant that the Tribunal has also erred

inasmuch as exonerating the respondent no.3 Insurance Company

from its liability. According to the counsel for appellant, there is no

dispute that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling i.e. Tata

Sumo Jeep bearing registration No. CG04/H/1327 was duly insured

with respondent no.3. At the relevant point of time, the vehicle was

covered by a comprehensive policy which had been brought on

record as Annexure D-1. Since it was comprehensive policy, the

Court below ought to have held the insurance company also jointly

and severely liable for the payment of compensation. Thus, counsel

for appellant prayed that firstly the amount of compensation may be

enhanced accepting the wages of the deceased to be around Rs.200

a day and also prayed for awarding compensation under other heads

including future income of the deceased etc. Counsel for appellant

also prayed for modification of the award so far as the exoneration of

the Insurance Company is concerned particularly when Annexure

D-1 was a comprehensive policy.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other

hand opposing the appeal, submitted that considering the fact that the

accident was of the year 2006 and the Tribunal had accepted the

income of the deceased to be the minimum wages that was prevalent

then of a skilled worker, the award does not warrant any interference.

It was also the contention of the counsel for Insurance Company that

since the policy issued was only for covering the third party, the

owner and a limited liability to one person, the Insurance Company

cannot be fastened with the liability of the entire compensation

quantified by the Tribunal. It was also the contention of the counsel

for Insurance Company that even as regards the income of the

deceased, there was no proof made available by the claimants to

substantiate their contention.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal

of the records, admittedly the accident did occur on 02.03.2006. As a

result of the accident, deceased Gopal Ieach aged around 25 years

succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained from the said accident.

The deceased was travelling in Tata Sumo Jeep driven by respondent

no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3

Insurance Company. The policy issued by the respondent no.3

indemnifying the owner was in fact a comprehensive/package policy

valid from 18.04.2005 to 17.04.2006 that is to say on the date of

accident on 02.03.2006 there was a valid policy available. The

premium paid was towards the total own damage and also towards

basic third party liability, Personal Accidental Coverage of the owner

and limited liability of one of the employee. The said policy had been

duly exhibited as Annexure D-1 before the Tribunal.

7. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Balakrishnan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very categorical terms has held that

the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay compensation in case

of comprehensive/package policy. There is no dispute on the part of

the Insurance Company as regards the policy not being a

comprehensive/package policy. It is also relevant to mention at this

juncture that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence before

the Tribunal. The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taken in the

case of Balakrishanan (supra) has further been reiterated by the

Supreme Court in the case of Jagtar Singh @ Jagdev Singh Vs.

Sanjeev Kumar and others in Civil Appeal No.7546 of 2013 decided

on 22nd December, 2017.

8. Taking into consideration the contents of the policy Annexure D-1

issued by the respondent no.3 Insurance Company and which is

undisputedly a comprehensive/package policy, there can be no doubt

that the comprehensive/package policy would also cover the liability

of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in the

insured vehicle as well.

9. Given the said judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and which has also been followed by all the High Courts including the

High Court of Chhattisgarh in a series of judgments in this regard, this

Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Claims Tribunal to the

extent of exonerating the Insurance Company does not seem to be

proper, legal and justified. The impugned award accordingly stands

modified to the extent that the respondent no.3 Insurance Company

shall be jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation quantified.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants have

pleaded and stated before the Tribunal that the deceased was

working as a Marble Mistri. It was also the contention of the appellant

before the Court below that the deceased was getting an income of

Rs.200/- a day i.e. Rs.6,000/- a month. Though admittedly there is no

proof of the wages of the deceased to be Rs.200/- a day, what strikes

the conscious of this Court is the fact that even at the time of accident

i.e. in March, 2006, a Marble Mistri was definitely getting around

rupees 200/- a day which makes it Rs.6,000/- a month. The monthly

income of Rs.3,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal would bring the

income of the deceased who was a Mabel Mistri to only Rs.100/- a

day which could perhaps have been the income of an unskilled labour

then. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the income assessed by

the Tribunal while quantifying the compensation on the death of the

deceased seems to be on the lower side.

11. Accordingly, this Court assesses the income of the deceased to

be Rs.6,000/- per month in stead of Rs.3,000/- which would bring the

annual income of the deceased to be Rs.72,000/-. Applying the

multiplier of 17 the amount would come to Rs.12,24,000/- of which if

1/3 is deducted towards self expenses i.e. Rs.4,08,000/- from

Rs.12,24,000/-, the amount would come to Rs.8,16,000/- which would

be the amount of compensation payable to the appellant as also the

respondent no.4 widow.

12. This Court at this juncture would not like to interfere with the

other compensation awarded by the Court below. Thus, the total

compensation payable to the appellant and the respondent no.4

widow would become 8,16,000 + 20,000 (compensation paid towards

other heads) = Rs.8,36,000/- in stead of Rs.4,28,000/- as quantified

by the Claims Tribunal.

13. The impugned award thus stands modified to the aforesaid

extent. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal shall remain

intact. The distribution of compensation between appellant and

respondent no.4 would also be at the same ratio as has been ordered

by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall make the necessary

payment at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The appeal thus stands allowed and disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai