Chattisgarh High Court
Chandra Prasad Choudhari vs Vijay Kumar Padhi on 21 March, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:13527
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 682 of 2020
1 - Chandra Prasad Choudhri S/o Tahalu Choudhri Aged About 50 Years
2 - Usharani Devi Choudhri W/o Chandra Prasad Choudhri Aged About 49
Years
3 - Anil Kumar Choudhri S/o Chandra Prasad Choudhri Aged About 24 Years
All the appellants are R/o K - 21/5, Telco Colony, Double Road, Jamshedpur
831004, P.O. Telco Workers, P.S. Telco, District Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Vijay Kumar Padhi Permanent R/o Sonabeda, Koraput, District Koraput
(Odisha)
At Present R/o Through Shyam Bihari Tiwari, Near J.K. Wire, Mixture Factory
Aamanaka Raipur, P.S. Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
(Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G. 04-C.T. - 8257)
2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra
Nagar Road, Raipur, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
(Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04- C.T. - 8257)
... Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
For Respondent No.2 :
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with
2025.03.26
10:03:35
Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate
+0530
_______________________________________________________
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
21/03/2025
1. Notice issued to respondent No.1 is reported to be un-served due to
'incomplete address'.
2. As the liability fastened upon respondent No.2/Insurance Company
to pay amount of compensation is not disputed by learned counsel
for respondent No.2, service of notice upon respondent No. 1 is
dispensed with.
3. Heard on IA No.1 which is an application for condonation of delay in
filing this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company opposes the pleadings made by learned counsel for the
appellants and submits that there is no satisfactory explanation
offered by the appellants for inordinate delay of 466 days in filing
this appeal.
5. On due consideration of the grounds pleaded in the application and
the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, IA No.1
is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
6. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this
appeal is heard finally.
7. Challenge in this appeal is to award dated 12.10.2018 passed by
learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in
Claim Case No.68 of 2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal partly
allowed the application filed by the appellants/claimants under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988")
and awarded them total compensation of Rs.15,69,000/- in a fatal
accident case.
8. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that
appellants/applicants/claimants filed a claim application under
Section 166 of the Act against the respondent/non-applicants,
pleading therein that on 07.04.2012, deceased Santosh Kumar
Chaudhari was traveling on a motor cycle bearing registration
number CG 04/CT/8257 along with Sujit Pani, son of non-applicant
No.1. The said vehicle was being driven by Sujit Pani and Santosh
Kumar Chaudhari was pillion rider. Due to rash and negligent driving
by Sujit Pani, the front tyre of the motorcycle burst and the
motorcycle lost balance and after hitting the road divider, it hit the
fencing wire on the roadside. In the accident, Santosh Kumar
Chaudhari who was pillion rider on the said motorcycle, sustained
grievous injuries and died on the spot and the driver also died on
the spot. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was driven
rashly and negligently by Sujit Pani, son of non-applicant No.1. The
registered owner of the said vehicle was the driver Sujit Pani, who
died in the accident. The offending vehicle was insured with non-
applicant No.2/Insurance Company. At the time of the accident, the
deceased Santosh Kumar Chaudhari was 26 years old. He was
working as a Supervisor in J.K. Tyres and Industries and earning
Rs.16,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the applicants/claimants
are the legal heirs of deceased Santosh Kumar Chaudhari and they
were completely dependent on his income. His death has caused
irreparable loss to his family, therefore, they prayed for awarding of
compensation of Rs. 52,84,000/- from the respondents/non-
applicants.
9. Non-applicant No.1 has been proceeded ex parte in the
proceedings, no written statement has been submitted on his
behalf.
10. Non-applicant No. 2/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
has opposed the claim by submitting its written statement wherein it
was pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of
the motorcycle No. CG 04/CT/8257 was driving the vehicle without
a valid and effective license in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act
and the basic conditions of the insurance policy. Since the vehicle
was being driven in violation of the insurance conditions, non-
applicant No.2 is not liable for any compensation. The deceased in
question was sitting behind on the motorcycle, therefore, his risk is
not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the legal heirs of
the deceased are not entitled to receive compensation. The
accident in question occurred due to mechanical fault of the vehicle.
The said accident occurred due to the owner of the vehicle for not
taking proper care of the motorcycle, therefore, the compensation
amount cannot be recovered from non-applicant No.2. The owner of
the motorcycle has died. There is no direct contract executed
between applicant No.1 and the insurance company and neither has
the insurance policy in question been transferred in the name of
appellant No.1. Exaggerated statements have been made regarding
the income of the deceased. The compensation has been assessed
arbitrarily. It was prayed that non-applicant No.2/Insurance
Company may be exonerated from the responsibility of paying
compensation as non-applicant No.2 has no contractual
responsibility towards appellant No.1 and the vehicle was driven in
violation of the insurance conditions.
11. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence
brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of
incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by son of non-
applicant No.1 rashly and negligently due to which motorcycle went
off the road and collied with the divider. In the said incident, Santosh
Kumar Choudhari who was pillion rider sustained grievous injury
and succumbed to death. Breach of insurance policy conditions
were not found to be proved. Assessing annual income of the
deceased as Rs.1,14,000/- (Rs.9,500/- per month), calculated and
awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.15,69,000/ -.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants as also counsel for the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company jointly submit that in view of
the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by
appellants/claimants regarding income from salary of deceased and
accepted by learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of salary slips
placed in evidence as Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-14 is not disputed, the only
question which is raised and to be answered in this appeal is
whether the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the
amount towards filial consortium to the appellants/claimants in the
light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.
14. In the case at hand, no disputed facts are involved.
Appellant/claimants in their claim application pleaded that the
deceased was working as Supervisor in J.K.Tyre and Industries Ltd.
as permanent employee and was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month.
However, in the evidence based on salary slips, income of the
deceased is proved by the appellants/claimants as Rs.9500/- per
month. Income proved by placing salary slips has been accepted by
learned Claims Tribunal and based upon which amount of
compensation is computed. Income as assessed by learned Claims
Tribunal based on documentary evidence is not in dispute. Addition
of the amount under future prospects and multiplier applied for loss
of dependency by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. Hence, the
amount of compensation is computed and awarded by learned
Claims Tribunal as Rs.15,69,000/- does not call for any interference.
However, from the amount of award calculated and computed as
also compensation granted would show that learned Claims
Tribunal has not awarded filial consortium to appellants No. 1 & 2
being parents of the deceased. According to decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra)
the parents are entitled for filial consortium against the loss suffered
by them due to death of their son and, therefore, this Court finds it
appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimants No. 1 & 2
each towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, in addition to the
amount of compensation of Rs.15,69,000/- already awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal, claimants/ appellants No. 1 & 2 are also
entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (40,000 +
40,000). Now the appellants/claimants are awarded the total
compensation of Rs.16,49,000/- (15,69,000 + 80,000) .
15. The amount of Rs.80,000/- which is now being awarded additionally
shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of
application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already
paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of
compensation which has now been calculated by this Court. Other
conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified
to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
