Chattisgarh High Court
Krishnalal vs Smt. Usha Bais on 6 May, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:20766
SOURABH
SOURABH
NAFR
PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.05.09
14:12:16
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 552 of 2019
1. Smt. Usha Bais Wd/o Pitambar Bais, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara Raipur, Police Station Azad Chowk, District
Raipur, Permanent Address Village Deori, Post And Police
Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
2. Ku. Aayushi D/o Late Pitambar Bais, Aged About 3 Years,
Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Usha Bais,
R/o Bramhanpara Raipur, Police Station Azad Chowk, District
Raipur, Permanent Address Village Deori, Post And Police
Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
3. Bhushan Lal S/o Pyarelal Bais, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara Raipur, Police Station Azad Chowk, District
Raipur, Permanent Address Village Deori, Post And Police
Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Durga W/o Bhushanlal Bais, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara Raipur, Police Station Azad Chowk, District
Raipur, Permanent Address Village Deori, Post And Police
Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1. Krishnalal S/o Gopilal Sahu R/o Bagaud, Police Station Kurud,
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver).
2. Ramakant S/o Krishnalal Sahu R/o Bagaud, Police Station
Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner).s
3. Bhartiya Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Through
Divisional Officer, Bhartiya Axa General Insurance Company
Ltd., Devendra Nagar, Chawla Complex, Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellants :
Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent Ms. Pragya Mishra, Advocate on behalf
No. 3 of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate.
1. Krishnalal S/o Gopilal Sahu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Bagaud, Thana Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
(Driver).
2. Ramakant S/o Krishnalal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Bagaud, Thana Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
(Owner).
---Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Usha Bais Wd/o Pitambar Bais, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara, Raipur, Thana Ajad Chowk, District Raipur,
Permanent Address- Village Devri, Post Office And Thana
Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
2. Kumari Aayushi, D/o Pitambar Bais, Aged About 3 Years,
Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Usha Bais,
R/o Bramhanpara, Raipur, Thana- Ajad Chowk, District
Raipur, Permanent Address- Village Devri, Post Office And
Thana Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
3. Bhushan Lal S/o Pyarelal Bais, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara, Raipur, Thana- Ajad Chowk, District Raipur,
Permanent Address- Village Devri, Post Office And Thana
Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Durga, W/o Bhushan Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Bramhanpara, Raipur, Thana- Ajad Chowk, District Raipur,
Permanent Address- Village Devri, Post Office And Thana
Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh................ (Claimants).
5. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., Through
Divisional Manager, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company
Ltd., Devendra Nagar Chawal Complex Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava,
Advocate.
Mr. Akash Shrivastava,
Advocate.
: Ms. Pragya Mishra, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(06.05.2025)
1. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment dated
09.02.2018, passed by 02nd Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal to 01st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 30/2013, they are being
heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The gist of the claims before the Tribunal was that on
28.01.2013, in the night at about 07.00 PM, in Kurra Road
next to village Banjari, Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.-04-
DB-1319 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1
namely Krishnalal and hit the motorcycle of Pitambar Bais (now
deceased), resultantly, he suffered grievous injuries and during
treatment he died. The matter was reported to the concerned
Police Station, thereon a criminal case was registered against
the driver and charge sheet was filed in the concerned Court. It
is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Pitambar Bais
was aged about 36 years and was married. The deceased was
working as a supervisor and had 12 acres agricultural land
from which he was earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per anum. Due to
the casual death of Pitambar Bais, there is an irreparable loss
to the appellants/claimants who are the wife, children and
parents of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred
an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation
of Rs. 38,10,000/-.
3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents available on record, assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the age of the
deceased was considered as 36 years at the time of the accident
and applied 40% future prospects to the income of the
deceased. Learned Tribunal found that claimants are wife,
children and parents (total persons 4), so deduction towards
personal and caring expenses would be 1/3, and after applying
a multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.
10,08,000/- and Rs.70,000/- has been awarding on other
heads. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 10,78,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the
appellants/claimants, from the date of application till its
realization, hence, the appeal (MAC No. 552/2019) for
enhancement. Further considering the fact that the offending
vehicle was driven with a breach of policy conditions as the
driver (Krishnalal) of the offending vehicle had not possessed
any valid and effective driving licence, at the time of the
accident, therefore, the insurance company has been
exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation and
liability was fastened upon the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle, hence the appeal (MAC No. 735/2018) filed
by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
1. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and
needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that by
considering the number of claimants i.e., 04, the deduction
should be 1/4 instead of 1/3. Learned counsel for appellants
also submits that the Tribunal has awarded lesser
compensation under other heads which also needs to be
enhanced suitably. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed. He
also made a prayer for applying the principle of pay and
recover.
2. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company
supported the impugned award and submitted that the award
in question is based on the proper appreciation of the material
available on record which does not call for any interference.
3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 (driver & owner)
submits that the learned Claims tribunal assessed the income
of the deceased as Rs.6000/- which is on the higher side.
Therefore, prayed for modification in the impugned order.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. 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.
6. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation
of Rs.10,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
7. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have
pleaded income of the deceased as Rs.3,00,000/- per anum
from the work of agriculture as he had 12 acres agricultural
land and also involved in the work of supervisor. However, in
respect of his income and work, no documentary evidence in
support thereof has been produced and proved. However,
looking to the age of the deceased as he was 36 years at the
time of accident and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the income of Rs.6,000/- as
assessed by the Claims tribunal is not on the higher side,
therefore, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as
Rs.6,000/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the
age of the deceased as 36 years, after adding 40% towards
future prospects, as has rightly held by the tribunal i.e. Rs.
28,800/-, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.
1,00,800/-.
8. In the instant case, the deceased was married and the
claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased
(total 04 persons), so deduction towards personal expenses
would be 1/4th instead of 1/3 i.e. Rs. 25,200/-, the annual
dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 75,600/-. In view of
judgment of the 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 considering the age of the deceased as 36 years, after
applying multiplier of 15, as has rightly held by the tribunal,
the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,34,000/-. The
claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for
funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC
189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and
affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-. Thus, the
claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.
13,24,000/- in the following manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 11,34,000/-
02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
03 Towards love and affection to Rs. 1,60,000/-
the all four claimants @ Rs.
40,000/-
04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 13,24,000/-
9. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.
13,24,000/-. After deducting Rs.10,78,000/- as awarded by
the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,46,000/-.
10. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-DB-1319 by its driver -
Krishnalal, i.e. Appellant No.1; Pitambar Bais sustained
grievous injuries in the motor accident and died; the appellants
liable for payment of compensation; the insurance company
exonerated from its liability to pay compensation as the
offending vehicle was driving by its driver without effective and
valid driving license on the date of accident and fastened
liability upon the driver/appellant No.1 and owner/appellant
No.2; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as
compensation in favour of claimants.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
learned Claims tribunal has erred in holding that the offending
vehicle was being driven without any valid licence and has
wrongly exonerated the insurance company. He further submits
that the awarded compensation amount by the learned claims
Tribunal is on the higher side and the Tribunal committed an
error of law and fact in considering the income of deceased as
Rs.6,000/- which should be computed as Rs.4,646/-.
Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the appellants
(driver & owner) are liable to be exonerated.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents
supported the award and submit that the award passed by the
learned Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of oral as
well as documentary evidence which needs not to interfere.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
award impugned including the record of the Tribunal.
14. So far as the prayer of the appellants (driver & owner) with
regard to income of the deceased is concerned, looking to the
evidence available on record, and considering the date of
accident i.e.,28.01.2013 and the nature of work of the deceased,
the Claims tribunal has considered the income of deceased as
Rs.6,000/- which is not on the higher side and seems to be
proper as discussed in para 7.
15. As regards the contention of the appellants (driver & owner) in
respect of the liability part, it is clear from paragraphs 11 and
12 of the award impugned that the offending vehicle was driven
by its driver Krishnalal in breach of policy conditions as he did
not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident and it is not proved that the driver drove the offending
vehicle (tractor) in accordance with the insurance conditions.
Thus, the finding of the Tribunal is based on proper
appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence which does
not call for any interference. In such a situation, the insurance
company has been exonerated to pay the compensation and the
appellants (driver & owner) can be held liable to pay the
awarded compensation to the claimants.
16.So far as the prayer of the claimants (In MAC No.552/2019)
with regard to applying the principle of pay and recover is
concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that at the time of accident, the offending
vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company.
Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another
Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and
others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, I direct the insurance
company to first pay the amount of compensation and then to
recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending
vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims
Tribunal.
17. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 552/2019) is partly
allowed. The claimants No. 1 to 4 ( wife, children and parents)
shall be entitled to Rs. 2,46,000/- in addition to what is
already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest @ 6% 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.
18. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal (MAC No.
735/2018) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
19.Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be
sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
