Smt. Minakshi Gupta And Ors vs Ajay Singh Thakur And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1275 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Minakshi Gupta And Ors vs Ajay Singh Thakur And Ors on 17 January, 2025

                                       1


                           Digitally signed
                           by BHOLA
                           NATH KHATAI
                           Date:
                           2025.01.23
                           11:32:49 +0530




                                                  2025:CGHC:3254
                                                                   NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                       MAC No. 820 of 2015


     Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager,
     Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                         --- Appellant
                                  versus
  1. Smt. Minakshi Gupta W/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 62
    Years R/o Vrindavan Colony Jagdalpur Thana Bodhghat District
    Bastar Chhattisgarh
  2. (Deleted) Manish Kumar Gupta As Per Hon'ble Court Order
    Dated 03-12-2021.
  3. Mausam Kumar Gupta S/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 30
    Years R/o Vrindavan Colony Jagdalpur Thana Bodhghat District
    Bastar Chhattisgarh
  4. Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Daulatram Thakur Aged About 29 Years
    R/o Village Kolchur, Shivnaguda Para, Thana Jagdalpur, District
    Bastar Chhattisgarh
  5. Abish Kumar Sao S/o Jhumuk Lal Sao Aged About 31 Years R/o
    Paratapgunj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
                                                  --- Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate

1. Smt. Minakshi Gupta Wd/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar Chhattisgarh

2. (Deleted) Manish Kumar Gupta As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 01-09-2021.

3. Mousam Kumar Gupta S/o Late Makhanlal Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat District Bastar Chhattisgarh

---Appellants Versus

1. Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Daulat Ram Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kolchur Shivnaguda Para P.S. Jagdalpr District Bastar Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Mahadev Ghat Para Shiv Mandir Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

2. Abish Kumar Sao S/o Jhumuk Lal Sao Aged About 31 Years R/o Pratapganj Para Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office At Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

17/01/2025

1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 16.04.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.37/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.4,82,544/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the

claimants, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals, in brief, are that on 12.10.2012 at around 9:40 a.m., when deceased Makhanlal Gupta was going on foot to Maa Durga Aloo Pyaaz Bhandar, Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur to work as an accountant, respondent Ajay Singh Thakur driving the offending Pickup bearing registration No. OR 10 E 3715 rashly and negligently dashed Makhanlal Gupta from behind near Chandini Chowk, Jagdalpur, as a result of which, he suffered grievous head injury and several other injuries on his body. He was first taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and then shifted to Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment on 23.10.2012. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against the driver at PS Kotwali, Jagdalpur (CG).

3. It was claimed that at the time of incident the deceased was aged about 68 years and was earning Rs.5,000 per month by working as an Accountant in Maa Durga Aloo Pyaaz Bhandar, Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur. Due to the casual death of Makhanlal Gupta, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the wife & children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-.

4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence bought on record, assessed the income of deceased at Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum as there was no documentary evidence presented regarding his income. Considering the two sons as major, the Tribunal has not considered them dependents on the deceased. Hence, half of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.18,000. Considering the age of the deceased to be 68 years, multiplier of 5 was applied and the total loss of dependency

worked out to Rs.90,000/-. In addition, Rs.25,000/- has been given under other heads and Rs.3,67,544 for medical expenses during treatment of the deceased. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,82,544/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants, against which MAC No.621/2015 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement. While passing the said award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability upon the insurance company against which MAC No.820/2015 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.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that at the relevant time, the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there has been a breach of policy condition and the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.

6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents 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.

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

8. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, the driver had a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) whereas he was driving a Pick-up i.e. a Light Goods Vehicle (LGV).

9. The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of

license authorizing to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the vehicle other than the type of vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held as under:-

"59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-03-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.

60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

60.1. ''Light motor vehicle'' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994.

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-03- 2001 in the form.

10. The driving licence of the driver has been brought on record and exhibited as Ex.D1 & D2. Perusal of the said documents would reflect that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles which is valid from 22.09.2008 to 21.09.2028. The accident took place on 12.10.2012. As such, the driver had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) at the time of accident. As per the provisions of Section 2(21) of MV Act, all vehicles whose weight is less than 7500 Kgs. are to be treated as 'Light Motor Vehicle'. As per the particulars of the registration, unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 1690 Kgs. and the laden weight was 2950 Kgs i.e. less than 7500 Kgs. Therefore, the offending vehicle would fall under LMV category and the driver did have a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Even otherwise, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the said contention of the Insurance Company would not be sustainable.

11. Learned Tribunal while discussing this issue in paragraphs - 25 & 26 of its award came to the conclusion that there was no breach of policy conditions and the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal is found to be justified and no interference is required in it.

12. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed.

13. As regards the appeal preferred by the claimants, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 per month is much less than even the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that time and hence, it needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the compensation given 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 claimants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the 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. Though it is claimed that at the time of accident deceased was earning Rs.5,000 per month by working as an accountant but no documentary evidence regarding his income has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 12.10.2012 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was Rs.4646. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at

Rs.4646 per month as minimum wages at that time instead of Rs.3000 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.55,752.

19. In the case, the claimants are the wife and two sons of the deceased. One of the sons Manish Kumar Gupta died during the pendency of this appeal. However, the Tribunal, in para-27 of its award, has not considered both the sons as dependents. Only the wife of the deceased has been considered dependent on the deceased. So deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 of the income, as rightly held by the Tribunal. After deduction of personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.27,876. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 and also considering the age of the deceased to be 68 years at the time of accident, the multiplier would be 5 as rightly held by the Tribunal. Hence, after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,39,380 (27,876 x 5). The claimants are 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, both the claimants are also entitled for Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards spousal consortium and love & affection. The amount of Rs.3,67,544 given for medical expenses is also found to be appropriate. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

                        Heads                            Amount

        For dependency                                        1,39,380
        For funeral expenses                                    15,000
        For spousal consortium, love &                          80,000
        affection


            For loss of estate                                      15,000
            For medical expenses                                   3,67,544
           Total compensation                                Rs.6,16,924

20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.6,16,924/- from which after deduction of Rs.4,82,544/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,34,380/-.

21. In the result, MAC No.621/2015 preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.1,34,380/- 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 stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

22. MAC No.820/2015 preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

23. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants 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 claimants reside.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai