Chattisgarh High Court
Bimla Devi Agrawal vs Gopal Nishad on 24 April, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:18529
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 606 of 2025
1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Officer In-Charge, T.P.
Hub United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lic Building, Magarpara Chowk Bilaspur
(C.G.) (N.A. No. 2)
---Appellant
versus
1 - Bimla Devi Agrawal Wd/o Ganeshlal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o
Odiapara, Behind Durga Mandir Mukam Post Saraipali, P.S. And Tehsil Saraipali
District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned P.S. Basna) (Claimants)
2 - Suraj Agrawal S/o Late Shree Ganeshlal Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o
Odiapara, Behind Durga Mandir Mukam Post Saraipali, P.S. And Tehsil Saraipali
District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned P.S. Basna)
3 - Gopal Nishad S/o Yudhisthir Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Saanpandhi, Post Saraipali, P.S. And Tehsil Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.)
(Driver-Owner) (N.A-1)
--- Respondent(s)
with
1 - Bimla Devi Agrawal W/o Late Ganeshlal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o
Udiyapara, Behind Durga Mandir, Mukam Post - Saraipali, Police Station And
Tahsil - Saraipali, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.),
(Claimants)
2 - Suraj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ganeshlal Aged About 26 Years R/o Udiyapara,
Behind Durga Mandir, Mukam Post - Saraipali, Police Station And Tahsil -
Saraipali, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Gopal Nishad S/o Yudhishthir Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village -
Sanpandhi, Post - Saraipali, Police Station And Tahsil - Saraipali, District -
Mahasamund (C.G.), (Owner And Driver Of Offending Vehicle Number C.G.-06/
J.K.-5177)
2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Krishna Complex, Kachhari Chowk,
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Number C.G.-06/
J.K.-5177) ... Respondents
For Appellant/Insurance :Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate
Company
For Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
24.04.2025
1) Heard on I.A.No.1/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the
present appeal.
2) Mr. Nande, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would submit that an award was passed on 09.09.2024 and thereafter, the
documents including the certified copy of the award were forwarded to the
Head Office seeking sanction to prefer an appeal. He would further submit
that on 17.10.2024, the documents were forwarded to the Head Office and
permission was granted on 26.11.2024 whereas the appeal was filed on
10.02.2025. He would pray to condone the delay of 49 days.
3) On the other hand, Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Nande.
4) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
5) Taking into consideration the explanation offered by Mr. Nande in the
application for condonation of delay, I am inclined to allow the application
(I.A.No.1/2025). The delay of 49 days caused in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
6) Heard on I.A.No.1/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the
present appeal.
7) Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Claimants would
submit that the present appeal is barred by 135 days delay. He would further
submit that the claimants are poor persons and they managed for expenses
to prefer an appeal and thereafter, they preferred the appeal along with this
application. He would pray to condone the delay of 135 days.
8) On the other hand, Mr. Nande learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by
Mr. Chandra.
9) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
10) Taking into consideration the explanation given by Mr. Chandra in the
application for condonation of delay, I am inclined to allow the application
(I.A.No.1/2025). The delay of 135 days caused in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
11)Heard on admission.
12) Both appeals have been preferred against the award dated 09.09.2024
passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Saraipali, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.42/2021.
13) The Insurance Company has challenged the award on two counts, first, the
offending vehicle was implanted by the claimants and second, the quantum
of compensation is too high.
14) The facts of the present case are that on 22.05.2020, the deceased Ganesh
Lal Agrawal was returning from Village Batki to Saraipali on his Scooty and
near Chhuhipali, National Highway No.53, a Force Trax Toofan bearing
registration No.C.G.-06-JK-5177, driven by one Gopal Nishad, dashed
against the Scooty, consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries
and died. The accident was intimated to the police and Crime No.53/2020
was registered for the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC. The claimants who are the wife and
son of the deceased filed a claim case claiming therein compensation to the
tune of Rs.60,00,000/- interalia on the ground that the deceased was a
businessman and his gross income according to the Income Tax Return was
about Rs.4,00,000/- in preceding years. It is also pleaded that at the time of
the accident, the age of the deceased was 60 years.
15) The driver and owner filed their reply and denied the claim averments. They
stated that at the relevant time, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance
Company. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments.
The Insurance Company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle
did not have a valid and effective driving license. It is also pleaded that the
offending vehicle was being driven in the absence of the proper permit and
fitness certificate. It is also stated that the deceased Ganesh Lal Agrawal
was negligent while driving his Scooty.
16)Mr. Nande, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would
submit that the accident took place on 22.05.2020 and the morgue was
registered vide Ex.P/4 and P/5 on 23.05.2020. An FIR was lodged on
16.07.2020 after two months without explaining the delay. He would further
submit that initially, the registration number of the offending vehicle and the
factum of the accident were not disclosed in the morgue intimation. He
would also submit that for the first time, in the FIR, the registration number of
the offending vehicle was disclosed. He would contend that the Scooty was
seized by the Police on 26.05.2020. He would further contend that the
offending vehicle was implanted by the claimants whereas that vehicle was
not involved at all in the accident. With regard to the quantum of
compensation, he would submit that Claimant No.2/son of the deceased is a
major of more than 25 years and is indulged in the transport business,
therefore, he cannot be treated as a dependent on the deceased. He would
also submit that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd for personal
income of the deceased but it should be 1/2 as claimant No.2 is a working
member of the family. He would further argue that the claimants are still
running their business, thus, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of
law in assessing the gross income of the deceased according to the income
tax return whereas the claimants are still running a business of late Ganesh
Lal Agrawal. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned
Tribunal. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Yogesh Devi and others, reported in 2012 (2) TAC 1 (S.C.), Rani
Gupta and others Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and
others, reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 745 (S.C.), Anil and Others Vs. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018(1) T.A.C. 355(S.C.) and
Usha Devi and others Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and
others, reported in 2020 (1) T.A.C. 41 (S.C.).
17) Mr. Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose
the submissions made by Mr. Nande. He would submit that the learned
Tribunal has awarded a meager amount. He would further submit that the
learned Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased properly. He
would also submit that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has not awarded
proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the compensation.
18) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
19) A perusal of the record would show that in an accident dated 22.05.2020, the
Scooty of the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing
registration No.C.G.06-JK-5177. An FIR was lodged on 16.07.2020 by
Devidutt Agrawal and the registration number of the offending vehicle was
disclosed.
20) Reply filed by the Insurance Company would show that there is no averment
with regard to the implantation of the vehicle and this issue is first time being
raised before this Court.
21) A perusal of the FIR would show that the registration number of the offending
vehicle was clearly stated by the complainant therefore, the contention made
by Mr. Nande appears to be misconceived.
22) It is also quite vivid that the Insurance Company failed to examine any of the
witnesses to prove the implantation of the offending vehicle. No officer of the
Insurance Company was examined to prove the contents of the reply. Also,
no investigation was carried out by the Insurance Company to establish that
the offending vehicle was implanted.
23) With regard to the quantum, as there is no evidence to rebut the averments
made by the claimants in their petition, it cannot be presumed that the son of
the deceased was not dependent on his father. Therefore, this ground is also
not available to the Insurance Company.
24) Now coming to the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of
compensation.
25) A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has considered
the Income Tax Return of the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 to
calculate the amount of dependency.
26) According to the Income Tax Return for the years between 2017-18, 2018-19
and 2019-20, the total income of the deceased was Rs.4,81,883/-,
Rs.3,70,547/- and Rs.3,95,209/- respectively. The dependency was
considered to the tune of Rs.3,70,547/-. The Learned Tribunal has deducted
1/3rd considering the number of dependents, which appears to be proper.
27) On the other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded proper compensation,
therefore, there is no scope for interference.
28) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for
interference. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and the
claimants are dismissed.
29) All pending application(s) are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
