Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Lal Bai vs Bagraj Yadav on 9 May, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2025.05.12
17:07:19 +0530
2025:CGHC:21564
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 77 of 2019
1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its
Legal Officer, Relaince General Insurance Company Limited,
301-302 Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, opposite Jhabua
Tower Indore, Madhya Pradesh, District : Jhabua, Madhya
Pradesh.
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Lal Bai W/o Late Premlal Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakadapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Sunita D/o Late Premlal Aged About 5 Years Minor
Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Lal Bai R/o Village
Shivpur Lakadapara, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan,
District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Raghunath Singh S/o Nansi Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakadapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Nanki Bai W/o Raghunath Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakadapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Bagraj Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav @ Bojhlal Aged About 48
Years R/o West Chirmiri Colliery, Podi District Korea
Chhattisgarh.
2
6 - Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Laxmi Prasad Singh R/o Village
Khadgawan, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan District
Korea Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.
with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Aditya Khare, Adv.
For other Respondents : None.
1 - Smt. Lal Bai W/o Late Premlal Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakdapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Koria, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Sunita D/o Late Premlal Aged About 5 Months, Minor
Represented Through Mother Smt. Lal Bai R/o Village Shivpur
Lakdapara, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koria,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Raghunath Singh S/o Nansai Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakdapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Koria, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Nanki Bai W/o Raghunath Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Shivpur Lakdapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Khadgawan, District Koria, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellants
Versus
1 - Bagraj Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav @ Bojhlal Aged About 48
Years R/o West Chirmiri Colliery Podi District Koriya
Chhattisgarh. (Driver Truck No. 709 Vehicle No. C.G. 16-A -
1951).
2 - Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Laxmi Prasad Singh R/o Village
Khadgwan, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgwan, District Koria
Chhattisgarh. (Owner Truck No. 709 Vehicle No.C.G. 16 -A-
1951).
3 - The Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Limited
Shop No. 516 5th Floor, National Corporate Park Commercial
Complex, G.E. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Truck No.
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Khare, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. with
Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv.
For other Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(09.05.2025)
1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award dated
07.07.2018 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District - Korea
(C.G.), in Claim Case No. 20/2017, they are being heard
and disposed of by this common order.
2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, was that on
11.01.2017, the deceased Premlal was coming on his
motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-16-CA-3166 from
village Jarondha to his village Shivpur, at that time near
boys' Ashram, Lakdpara, he was dashed by an offending
truck bearing registration No. CG-16-A-1951, which was
being driven by Bagraj Yadav in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result of which, Premlal succumbed to his
injuries on the spot. It is claimed that the deceased was
aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and used
to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from the work of labour
and agriculture, and maintained his family. Therefore, the
claimants preferred an application under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act to claim a total compensation of Rs.
1,13,30,000/-.
3. When the claim application under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act for compensation was filed by claimants widow,
daughter and parents of the deceased before the claims
Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company
of the alleged vehicle the tribunal was taken the income of
the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per year in absence of any
documentary prove of income of the deceased. Further,
considering the age of the deceased as 26 years, 40%
future prospect has been added. Considering the fact that
the deceased was married and the claimants are 4
persons, therefore, the deduction towards personal
expenses would be 1/4th, and considering the age of the
deceased multiplier of 17 was applied and calculated the
total loss of dependency to Rs. 6,42,600/-. Further, Rs.
95,000/- on other heads has been awarded, thus a total
compensation of Rs. 7,37,600/- with interest @ 8% per
annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants and
liability was fastened upon the driver, owner and
insurance company of the offending vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a
grave error in fastening the liability upon the insurance
company as the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the
offending vehicle i.e. Tata 709, this fact has also been
admitted by the owner of the offending vehicle in para 7 of
his statement. Thus, the order impugned is liable to be set
aside so far as the fastening liability upon the insurance
company is concerned, and the insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation.
5. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned
award.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. In the case in hand, though Sanjay Kumar (NAW-1), owner
of the offending vehicle admitted in his cross examination
that the driver Bagh Raj did not possess a valid driving
license on the date of accident i.e. 11.01.2017, but looking
to the driving license Ex.NA-2 of driver Bagh Raj available
in the record would show that the driving license was valid
from 22.02.1989 to 28.05.2021 for transport vehicle and
from 28.11.1987 to 28.05.2023 for Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) whereas the date of accident was 11.01.2017.
8. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that at
the time of the accident, the driver had not possessed a
valid and effective driving license to drive the offending
vehicle i.e. Tata 709, therefore, there was a clear breach of
the insurance policy condition.
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.
60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of
Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while
substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which
contained "medium goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)
(e), "medium passenger motor vehicle" in Section
10(2)(f), "heavy goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(g) and
"heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(h),
with expression "transport vehicle" as substituted in
Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid
substituted classes only. It does not exclude
transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)
(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor
vehicle.
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, perusal of
particulars of license Ex.NA-2 of driver/Bagh Raj would
reflect that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving
licence to drive transport vehicle which was valid from
22.02.1989 to 28.05.2021 and to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) was valid from 28.11.1987 to 28.05.2023. The
accident took place on 11.01.2017. As such, the driver
had a valid LMV licence at the time of accident. As per the
provisions of Section 2(21) of M.V. Act, all vehicles whose
weight is less than 7500 Kgs. are to be treated as 'Light
Motor Vehicle'. Perusal of vehicle particulars Ex.NA-1C
(particulars of registration) would show that the unladen
weight of the offending vehicle was 3215 Kgs and the laden
weight (G.V.W.) was 7490 Kgs i.e. less than 7500 Kgs.
Therefore, the offending vehicle would fall under LMV
category and the driver at the time of accident did have a
licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). 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. Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the
finding of the Tribunal that on the date of the accident, the
driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to
drive the vehicle in question and there was no breach of
insurance policy conditions, therefore, the appeal of the
insurance company/appellant is liable to be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further
submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the
deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month as the deceased was
labour and agriculturist, but the learned Claims Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-
per annum and total compensation of Rs. 7,37,600/- has
been awarded including the amount of other conventional
heads of Rs. 95,000/-. The learned counsel urged that the
awarded compensation on the other heads by the claims
tribunal is also on the lower side. Hence, this appeal may
be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/insurance company
supported the impugned award so far as the quantum part
is concerned.
14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. As regards the income of the deceased, though the
claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning
Rs.10,000/-. per month from her work of labour and
agriculture, but no valid documentary evidence in support
of income has been produced thereof, therefore, in absence
of any documentary evidence regarding income of the
deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date
of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of
accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially
notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, I
find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as Rs.
6,206/- per month as minimum wages of unskilled worker,
at the relevant time of accident i.e. 11.01.2017. The annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.74,472/- per annum.
Since the deceased was 26 years old at the time of
accident, therefore, as per National Insurance Company
Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
the future prospects would be 40%, as has rightly held by
the claims tribunal, after adding 40% towards future
prospects i.e. Rs. 29,788.8/- in round figure Rs. 29,789/-,
the annual income comes to Rs. 1,04,261/-.
18. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 26 years
and was married and the claimants are total 4 persons i.e.
the wife, child, and parents of the deceased, so deduction
towards personal expenses would be 1/4th i.e. Rs.
26,065/-, as has rightly held by the claims tribunal, after
deducting 1/4th income towards personal expenses, the
annual dependency of the claimants/appellants comes to
Rs. 78,196/-. 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, the multiplier would
be 17, as has rightly applied by the claims tribunal,
therefore, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs. 13,29,332/-. 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 of Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-.
Thus, the claimants would become entitled for total
compensation of Rs. 15,19,332/- in the following manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,29,332/-
02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
03 Towards love and affection, to all Rs. 1,60,000/-
the 4 claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-
04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 15,19,332/-
19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.
15,19,332/-. After deducting Rs.7,37,600/- as awarded by
the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,81,732/-.
20. In the result, the appeal (MAC No. 77/2019) of insurance
company is dismissed and the appeal (MAC No.
1824/2018) of claimants is partly allowed. The claimants
shall be entitled to Rs. 7,81,732/- in addition to what has
already been 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.
21. Records of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of
this judgment forthwith for information and necessary
action, if any.
22. The Registry is further directed to communicate the
claimants 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 claimants resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H. L. Sahu
