National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Rannu Tripathi
2025 Latest Caselaw 3324 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Rannu Tripathi on 27 June, 2025

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                             1




                                             2025:CGHC:28699
                                                           NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                   MAC No. 339 of 2020
1. National insurance company limited through Divisional
  Manager, Divisional Office, by the side of Lal Ganga Shoping
  Mall, GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                         ... Appellant-Insurer
                          versus
1. Smt. Rannu Tripathi W/o Late Harihar Nath Tripathi, Aged
  About 48 Years Resident - Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur,
  Thana Kabeer Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Rukhmani Tripathi D/o Late Harihar Nath Tripathi Aged About
  30 Years Resident - Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur, Thana
  Kabeer Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
3. Jyoti Tripathi D/o Late Harihar Nath Tripathi Aged About 28
  Years Resident - Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur, Thana
  Kabeer Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
4. Shankar Dayal Tripathi S/o Late Harihar Nath Tripathi Aged
  About 26 Years Resident - Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur,
  Thana Kabeer Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
5. Bramha Dayal Tripathi S/o Late Harihar Nath Taripathi Aged
  About 24 Years Resident - Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Heerapur,
  Thana Kabeer Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Brijesh Yadav S/o Ramsagar Yadav Aged About 29 Years
  Resident Plot Number -739, Trimurti Nagar, Deshpandey Laut
  Pardi Bhandiwadi, Nagar, District - Nagpur(Maharashtra)
  (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. M.P. - 22 H - 0312),
                                      2

  7. Mangla Yadav S/o Shankar Yadav Aged About 29 Years
     Resident Through Orissa - Raipur Road Line, Behind Payal B
     NR Railway Crossing, Old Pardi Naka, Nagpur, District
     Nagpur, (Maharashtra) (Vehicle Owner of Truck No. MP22-H-
     0312).
                                                      ... Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Ms.Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 27/6/2025

1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal

challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the

claimants by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur

(for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 9.12..2019.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the claimants/respondent

Nos.1 to 5 herein have claimed compensation of

Rs.59,50,000/- by filing an application under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for death of Hariharnath Tripathi,

who died in the motor accident near Bhanpuri Chowk, Raipur

from truck bearing registration No.MP22-H-0312 due to rash

and negligent driving by its driver.

3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 proceeded ex-parte and as such,

reply has not been filed on their behalf.

4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply to claim

application denying dependency of claimants on the

deceased as also allegation of rashness and negligence on

the part of driver of offending vehicle. It was further pleaded

that the offending vehicle was plied in breach of the policy

conditions.

5. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence of the respective parties, allowed the

application in part, awarded total compensation of

Rs.20,06,594/- to claimants and held the insurance company

liable to pay the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the

insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

He submits that the Claims Tribunal has assessed age of

deceased as 49 years for computing the amount of

compensation overlooking the documentary evidence

available in the shape of income tax return filed by claimants

themselves to prove the income of deceased, in which date of

birth of deceased is mentioned as '23.12.1960', which means

on the date of accident i.e. 22.4.2017, deceased was about

57 years of age. Thus, the Claims Tribunal committed error in

adding 25% towards loss of future prospects and applying

multiplier of 13. He further contended that the insurance

company has been permitted to contest the claim on all

grounds under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 by the Claims

Tribunal, therefore, it has right to challenge the quantum of

compensation.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants/respondents

No.1 to 5 vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel

for appellant and submits that the insurance company cannot

challenge the quantum of compensation and as such, appeal

filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum is not

maintainable.

8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused

the impugned award and documents available in record of the

Claims Tribunal.

9. So far as objection with respect to maintainability of appeal is

concerned, in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Nicolleta Rohatgi reported in (2002) 7 SCC 456 Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"26......Thus, unless an order is passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurer to avail the grounds available to an insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the two conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. Thus where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 are satisfied and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer, the insurer has a right to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle even if the insured has not filed any

appeal against the quantum of compensation. Sections 149, 170 and 173 are part of one Scheme and 8 if we give any different interpretation to Section 173 of the 1988 Act, the same would go contrary to the scheme and object of the Act."

10. In case of Josphine James vs United India Insurance Co.

Ltd., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 711, the two Judges Bench of

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though decision in

Necolleta Rohatgi's case (supra) has been referred to Larger

Bench, the same has not been overruled yet and thus the ratio

in case of Nicolletta Rohatgi (supra) will be still applicable.

11. In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta,

reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509 the Supreme Court has

observed thus:-

"20.When a statutory notice is issued under Section

149 (2) by the tribunal, it is clear that such notice is

issued not to implead the insurer as a party-

respondent but merely to put it on notice that a claim

has been made in regard to a policy issued by it and

that it will have to bear the liability as and when an

award is made in regard to such claim. Therefore, it

cannot, as of right, require that it should be impleaded

as a party-respondent. But it can however be made a

party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in

the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal

under Section 170 of the Act. Whatever be the

reason or ground for the insurer being impleaded

as a party, once it is a party-respondent, it can

raise all contentions that are available to resist the

claim." (emphasis supplied)

12. Thus, it is well settled that an insurer is not entitled to challenge

the award on the question of quantum unless permission under

Section 170 of the Act of 1988 has been obtained in the

proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. Once the conditions

precedent embodied in Section 170 of the Act of 1988 are

satisfied and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer, the

insurer has a right to file an appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the

offending vehicle even if the insured has not filed any appeal

against the quantum of compensation.

13. In the instant case, the Insurance Company was impleaded as

third respondent. The driver and owner of the vehicle, though

appeared before the Tribunal, did not contest the proceedings.

They did not file the written statement nor did they choose to

give evidence before the Tribunal. After the driver and owner of

offending vehicle proceeded ex-parte, an application under

Section 170 of the Act of 1988 was filed by the Insurance

Company seeking permission to raise all the points which could

have been raised by the driver and owner of the offending

vehicle. Said application has been allowed vide order dated

8.5.2019 and permission was granted to the insurance

company. Under these circumstances, there is no impediment

for entertaining the appeal preferred by the appellant

insurance company on the question of quantum.

Consequently, this Court does not find any force in the

objection raised with respect to maintainability of appeal at

the instance of insurance company challenging the quantum

and it is hereby repelled.

14. As regards quantum of compensation, claimants/ respondent

Nos.1 to 5 filed an application seeking compensation for the

motor accidental death of deceased pleading that on the date of

accident deceased was 49 years of age but in support thereof

not filed any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal relying

on the age of deceased mentioned in the inquest (Ex.P-4),

postmortem report (Ex.P-7), has taken the age of deceased as

49 years on the date of accident and proceeded to compute the

compensation payable to claimants. However, perusal of

computation of income filed along with Income Tax returns as

Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-14 by the claimants themselves to prove

income of deceased, would reveal that in this document, date of

birth of deceased is mentioned as "21.12.1960". These income

tax returns placed on record by claimants themselves show that

the same were submitted by the deceased himself before his

death. Thus, the only documentary evidence which was on

record with regard to the age of the deceased was the

computation of income attached with income tax return,

according to which date of birth of deceased was 21.12.1960.

The Claims Tribunal has not considered the document showing

date of birth declared by the deceased but erroneously relied on

the age mentioned in the documents prepared by the police on

assumption. Thus, considering the computation of total income

attached with Income Tax return, it can safely be concluded that

the age of deceased at the time of the accident could not have

been 49 years but was 57 years. Under these circumstances,

the finding of the Claims Tribunal based on the inquest (Ex.P-4),

postmortem report (Ex.P-7), is erroneous and is hereby set

aside. It is ordered that on the date of accident, age of deceased

was 57 years.

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recalculate

the amount of compensation.

16. Accordingly, the annual income of deceased is taken as

Rs.1,58,900/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and as

deceased was found to be 57 years old, 10% is to be added

towards loss of future prospects and after adding 10% to

assessed income of deceased, the annual income of

deceased comes to Rs.1,74,790/-. Out of this amount, one-

fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses

and after deducting one-fourth, total loss of yearly dependency

would come to Rs.1,31,093/-. As the deceased is found to be

57 years of age on the date of accident, as held above,

multiplier of 9 would be applicable and after applying multiplier

of 9, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,79,837/-.

Besides this, respondents No.1 to 5 are also entitled for a

sum of Rs.40,000/-; Rs.15000/- for loss of estate and

Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses. Now, the claimants/

respondents No.1 to 5 will be entitled for a total compensation

of Rs.12,49,837/- in place of Rs.20,06,594/- as awarded by the

Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application till

actual realization. Any amount disbursed to appellants

pursuant to the impugned award will be adjusted from the

amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the

conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

SYED 17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

ZAMIR ALI                                                      Sd/-
                                                      (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                                                              Judge
               roshan/-