Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt. Seema Bairagi And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6376 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                     NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          MAC No. 1046 of 2015

  1. Smt. Seema Bairagi W/o Late Asim Bairagi, R/o Village P. V. 31,
     Hariharpur, Thana Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker
     Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

  1. Arun Kumar S/o Bholaram, R/o Village Pandripani, Thaan Parpa
     Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

  2. Anil Kumar Shukla S/o B. D. Shukla, R/o Shantinagar Ward Thana
     Bodhghat, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh

  3. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. Through Shivmohan
     Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
     492001

  4. Smt. Laxmi Bairagi W/o Adhir Bairagi, R/o Village P. V. 31, Hariharpur,
     Thana Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

  5. Pratima W/o Pran Krishna Bain, R/o Village P. V. 31, Thana Tahsil
     Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

  6. Anant Bairagi S/o Late Adhir Bairagi, R/o Village P. V. 31, Thana
     Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondents

For Appellant         :       Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate
For Insurance Company :       Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate



                          MAC No. 501 of 2015

 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, P.S. Mova Pandri, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Raipur, Tah. And Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Seema Bairagi W/o Asim Bairagi, R/o Village P.V. No 31, Hariharpur, P.S. Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar,

Kanker, Civil And Revenue District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

2. Arun Kumar S/o Bholaram, R/o Village Pandripani, P.S. Parpa- Jagdalpur- Bastar, Civil And Revenue District- Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

3. Anil Kumar Shukla S/o Shri B.D. Shukla R/o Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, Tah. Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue District- Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Laxmi Bairagi W/o Late Adhir Bairagi, Village P.V. No. 31, Hariharpur, P.S. Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, Distt.- Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

5. Pratima W/o Pran Krishna Bain, R/o P.V. No. 31, P.S. Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, Distt.- Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

6. Anant Bairagi S/o Adhir Bairagi, R/o P.V. No. 31, P.S. Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, Distt.- Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Insurance Company : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha Advocate For Claimant : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgement On Board 19.10.2022

1. These are two appeals arising out of the common award dated

27.01.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bhanupratappur, District U.B. Kanker in Claim Case No.24/2012.

2. MAC No.1046/2015 is an appeal by the claimant seeking for

enhancement and MAC No.501/2015 is an appeal by the Insurance

Company assailing the liability part. In MAC No.501/2015 the

respondents 4 to 6 have also filed a cross appeal.

3. For convenience sake we take up the appeal of the Insurance

Company first i.e. MAC No.501/2015 as there is a challenge to the

liability part.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that

it is a case where the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant

point of time did not have a valid licence.

5. However, from perusal of the record it would show that there is no

strong material brought on record by the Insurance company to

establish the fact that the driver did not have a valid licence. In the

course of examining witnesses, the Insurance Company had called

upon an officer from the transport department. In the course of

recording of evidence of the said witness from the transport office, the

licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was proved and

established. Thus, the ground raised by the Insurance Company

would not be permissible to be raised in the instant appeal and there is

no strong material available to take a different view than what has

been taken by the Tribunal.

6. As regards MAC No.1046/2015, it is an appeal by the claimant for

enhancement. The deceased at the time of accident was aged around

28 years. By occupation he is said to have been a labour. The

Tribunal has quantified the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- a

month and Rs.36,000/- a year.

7. The contention of the counsel for claimant is that the Tribunal while

quantifying the compensation has not granted compensation towards

future prospects. He submits that the compensation granted under

conventional head is also on the lower side in the light of the judgment

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

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.,(2017) 16 SCC 680.

Thus, the compensation awarded needs to be recalculated.

8. Accepting the annual income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- a year,

there would be a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses

considering the fact that the deceased was a married person and it

would bring the amount to Rs.24,000/-. Further there shall be an

addition of 40% towards future prospects i.e. 9,600 which would bring

the amount to Rs.33,600/-. If the said amount is multiplied applying

the multiplier of 17, it would come to Rs.5,71,000/- towards loss of

dependency.

9. The claimant i.e. the widow, mother, brother and sister of the deceased

would be entitled for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each totalling

Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, the claimant would also be entitled for loss

of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.30,000/- which would bring the

total compensation payable at Rs.7,61,200/- in stead of Rs.4,33,000/-

as awarded by the Tribunal. The interest part as awarded by the

Tribunal shall remain intact. The amount needs to be disbursed in

terms of the apportionment made by the Tribunal itself. However, it is

clarified that the brother and the sister of the deceased would also be

entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.40,000/- each.

10. Considering the fact that the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC

No.1046/2015 stands allowed and the amount of compensation stands

enhanced, the Cross-Appeal filed by the claimants in the appeal filed

by the Insurance Company does not call for a separate adjudication

and the Cross-Appeal would be governed by the order passed in MAC

No.1046/2015. The Cross-Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

11. In consequence, MAC No.1045/2015 stands allowed and MAC

No.501/2015 stands rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai