The United India Insurance Company ... vs Lata Sahu
2025 Latest Caselaw 1211 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

The United India Insurance Company ... vs Lata Sahu on 15 January, 2025

                                            1


                         Digitally signed
                         by BHOLA
                         NATH KHATAI
                         Date:
                         2025.01.17
                         12:50:24
                         +0530



                                                      2025:CGHC:251


                                                                     AFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         MAC No. 789 of 2015

                       Reserved on 09.01.2025
                       Delivered on 15.01.2025


     The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch
     Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kachehri Chowk,
     Raipur, District- Raipur- Chhattisgarh
                                                              --- Appellant
                                      versus
  1. Lata Sahu Wd/o Gaukaran Sahu R/o Karma Chowk, Bhavani
     Nagar Raipur, P.O. Telghaninaka, Raipur, Thana Chowk,
     Ramnagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
  2. Tuleshwar @ Kuleshwar S/o Pawan Sahu Aged About 25 Years
     R/o Janjgir, P.S. Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                      --- Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate

Tuleshwar @ Kuleshwar S/o Pawan Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Janjgir, P. S. Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ..... Claimant

---Appellant Versus

1. Lata Sahu Wd/o Gaukaran Sahu, R/o Karma Chowk, Bhavani Nagar, Raipur, Post - Telghani Naka, Raipur, P. S. Chowk Ramnagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ............... Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 04 / D R / 6914

2. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G 04 D R 6914 --- Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal CAV ORDER

1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos.59/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimant, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals, in brief, are that on 28.03.2013 at about 11 a.m., claimant Tuleshwar @ Kuleshwar and his wife Purnima Sahu were travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle of Gaukaran Sahu whose wife Lata Sahu is respondent, bearing registration No. CG 04 DR 6914. Further case of the claimant is that the front tire of the motorcycle burst in front of Maharshi Vidyalaya under Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur due to which the motorcycle fell down on the road and was crushed by an unknown vehicle, as a result of which, Purnima Sahu died on the spot and claimant Tuleshwar suffered grievous injuries all over his body. Upon report being made in this regard,

crime was registered against the driver of unknown vehicle at PS Amanaka, District - Raipur (CG). The claimant who is the husband of deceased Purnima Sahu preferred two applications before the Tribunal. Claim Case No.59/2013 was preferred under Section 163A of MV Act in respect of the death of his wife Purnima Sahu claiming total compensation of Rs.17,37,000/- and Claim Case No.60/2013 was preferred under Section 166 of MV Act in respect of the injuries suffered by claimant Tuleshwer himself.

3. In Claim Case No.59/2015, the Tribunal, after considering the

evidence bought on record, assessed the income of deceased Purnima Sahu to be Rs.15,000 per annum as there was no documentary evidence regarding her income. Further, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and After deduction, the amount comes to Rs.10,000. Considering the age of the deceased to be 25-30 years, multiplier of 18 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. In addition, a total amount of Rs.7,000/- has been provided under other heads. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimant in Claim Case No.59/2013, against which MAC No.1204/2015 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement. While passing the said award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability upon the insurance company against which MAC No.789/2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking for exoneration from the liability.

Now, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is being decided first.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the motorcycle is meant for two persons and the insurance policy

of the motorcycle in question covers the risk of the driver and one pillion rider, whereas at the time of incident, 3 persons were travelling in the said motorcycle. The contention of the insurance company is that the compensation awarded in respect of one pillion rider i.e. the claimant himself has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded in respect of the other pillion rider Purnima Sahu (deceased) as the Insurer, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, is liable to pay compensation in respect of only one pillion rider and not both the pillion riders. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the counsel for the claimant that in the facts and circumstances of case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability is just and proper and does not require any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is clear from the evidence that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle and the FIR was also lodged against the driver of the unknown vehicle. The claim application was filed under Section 163A of the MV Act against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which apart from driver Gaukaran, claimant Tuleshwar and his wife Purnima Sahu (deceased) were travelling as pillion riders. The motorcycle is a two-seater vehicle. There were three persons riding on the motorcycle in question at the time of accident. However, the policy covers the risk of the driver and only one pillion rider, therefore, the Insurance Company shall cover the risk of one pillion rider.

8. Now the question to be considered is which pillion rider's risk will be covered by the insurance company?

9. The liability of insurer towards third parties died or injured in accidents involving different types of motor vehicles, has been

crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 445 holding that the insurer shall satisfy the awards which are at higher side. Para-22 of the said judgment reads as under:

"Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy."

10. Referring to the aforesaid judgment in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. M. Poonam & Ors. reported in (2015) 15 297 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 & 40 held as under:

"36. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle.

40. .....For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company."

11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that two claim applications were filed in respect of the two pillion riders. Claim Case No.60/13 was filed by pillion rider Tuleshwar himself for the injuries suffered in the accident, in which compensation of Rs.20,000 has been awarded. Claim Case No.59/13 was filed in

respect deceased Purnima Sahu who was riding as pillion, in which compensation of Rs.1,87,000 has been awarded. As such, higher compensation has been awarded in Claim Case No.59/13. Hence, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the insurance company shall satisfy the higher award passed in Claim Case No.59/2013 in respect of death of Purnima Sahu.

12. Thus, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation awarded in Claim Case No.59/2013 to the claimant.

13. In this appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while computing compensation and the compensation awarded under other heads also needs to be enhanced suitably.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for claimant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Claim Case No.59/13 was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, the income should not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. Though it has been claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by selling vegetables, no documentary evidence in this regard has been brought on record. However, considering the facts of the case, nature of work and period of incident, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.30,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000 determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. However, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects would be 40% of the income and after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.12,000, the amount comes to Rs.42,000/-. In this case, there is only one claimant who is the husband of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be ½ of the income. After deduction of personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.21,000. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be 25-30 years at the relevant time. Taking into account the said age of the deceased and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be 17 instead of 18 as wrongly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,57,000/- (21,000 x 17). In addition, the claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimant is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium. Accordingly, the

claimant would become entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

                           Heads                         Calculation

            For dependency                                      3,57,000
            For loss of estate                                   15,000
            For spousal consortium                               40,000
            For funeral expenses                                 15,000
           Total compensation                              Rs.4,27,000

19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.4,27,000/- from which after deduction of Rs.1,87,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.2,40,000/-.

20. In the result, MAC No.1204/2015 preferred by the claimant is partly allowed. The claimant Tuleshwar shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.2,40,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award passed in Claim Case No.59/2013 stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

21. MAC No.789/2015 preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

22. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. 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