Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kusum Bai Patre vs Jay Kumar @ Jay Singh Thakur (Deleted) on 2 May, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.05.05
16:32:29 +0530
2025:CGHC:20214
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1880 of 2018
Smt. Kusum Bai Patre W/o Late Dashrath Ram Patre, Aged About
55 Years, R/o Belsari, P.S. Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1. Jay Kumar @ Jay Singh Thakur (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court
Order Dated 04-02-2025.
2. Raju Gupta S/o Ramu Sav Gupta R/o Ramnagar Kota, P.S. Kota,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Owner Of Bus Bearing No.
C.G. 10/A-7425)
3. Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-8 Epip Riico, Industrial Area Sitapur, Jaipur Rajasthan 302022,
India
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
02/05/2025
1. It is a claimant's appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
challenging the award dated 18.09.2018 passed by 5 th Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case
2. The facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that
Jagendra Patre (deceased) was working as a Khalasi in the bus
bearing registration No. CG 10 A 7425, owned by respondent No.2
Raju Gupta and insured by respondent No.3 insurance company.
On 01.05.2015 at about 4:20 pm, when the said bus was on its way
from Takhatpur to Kota carrying passengers, respondent No.1 Jai
Kumar while driving the bus rashly and negligently overturned it
near Bija Ghoda Road, as a result of which, Jagendra suffered
grievous injuries on his head, face, forehead and other parts of the
body. He was immediately taken to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur for
treatment where he died. The mother of the deceased preferred an
application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.13,50,000/- under various heads. Learned Tribunal, on a close
scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total
compensation of Rs.6,90,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimant.
3. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the
deceased Jagendra Patre was a Khalasi i.e. cleaner of the
offending vehicle. The Tribunal has found in paragraphs - 32 & 33 of
the award that as per policy Exhibit D-3, the risk was covered for
personal accident of Owner Driver, 1 Paid Driver & 1 Paid
Conductor apart from third party but the risk of Khalasi was not
covered. Hence, the insurance company was exonerated from its
liability and the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle was
held liable for payment of compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant argued that deceased
Jagendra Patre was a cleaner of the bus and as per the premium
paid under policy Exhibit D-3, the risk of the deceased cleaner was
also covered. He has referred to IMT 40 in policy Exhibit D-3 and
submitted a separate copy of the same for perusal of the Court.
Apart from this, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant also
argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the
lower side and under other heads also, less amount has been
awarded, which should be suitably enhanced.
5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. In the "award in question" the Tribunal has held that the deceased
Jagendra Patre was working as a Khalasi in the offending vehicle
and died when the said vehicle met with an accident. The premium
paid in the policy Exhibit D-3 is as under:-
ADD: LL to Paid Conductor Count : 1 50
8. In the insurance policy Exhibit D-3, "Subject to IMT Endorsement
printed herein/attached to : IMT-21, IMT-23, IMT-40, IMT-7" is
mentioned. As per the documents regarding Liability Only Policy-
Commercial Vehicles (Passenger Carrying Vehicle) submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant, IMT-40 is as follows:-
IMT 40. Legal Liability to paid driver and/or conductor
and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation
of motor vehicle.
In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is
hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything
contained herein to the contrary the insurer shall indemnify
insured against his legal liability under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of
that Act prior to the date of this endorsement, the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law in respect of
personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or
cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such
occupation in connection with the vehicle insured and will in
addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred
with its written consent.
The premium to be calculated and paid while taking insurance
of the vehicle concurred at the rate of Rs. 50/- per driver
and/or conductor and/or cleaner.
Provided always that :-
1) this Endorsement does not indemnify the insured in respect
of any liability in cases where the insured holds or
subsequently effects with any insurer or Group of Underwriters
a Policy of Insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for
his general employees.
2) the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent
accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations.
3) the insured shall keep a record of the name of each driver
cleaner conductor or person employed in loading and/or
unloading and the amount of wages salary and other earnings
paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer
to inspect such record.
4) in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of
the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this
Endorsement will be allowed.
Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and
limitations of this Policy except so far as necessary to meet the
requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. From perusal of the insurance policy and IMT-40, it is clear that
under the insurance policy, apart from the driver, a premium of
Rs. 50/- has also been paid for the conductor. According to IMT-40,
"Driver and/or Conductor and/or Cleaner" are also included in that
premium of Rs. 50/-. Khalasi can be meant as cleaner only. There
is no evidence that anyone other than the deceased was working
as a cleaner in the offending vehicle. In this situation, keeping in
view the entry in the policy exhibit D-3 and IMT-40, this Court finds
that the risk of deceased Jagendra Patre was also covered under
the policy. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not
found to be proper. For this reason, the insurance company which
has been exonerated from its liability by the Tribunal is also not
found to be proper.
10. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the risk of the
deceased was also covered under the insurance policy Exhibit D-3.
Hence, the insurance company is liable to compensate the
deceased.
11. As regards quantum, from the evidence presented by the claimant
side, it is clear that at the time of accident, the deceased was an
unmarried young man of 19 years. The deceased was working as a
Khalasi. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of
deceased at Rs.4,500 per month as no documentary evidence
regarding his income has been brought on record. The accident
occurred on 01.05.2015 and the minimum wages of even an
unskilled labour at that time was Rs.5517. Hence, the income of the
deceased is assessed to be Rs.5517 per month as minimum
wages instead of Rs.4,500 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
annual income comes to Rs.66204. Considering the age of the
deceased, his marital status and number of claimants, the future
prospects of 40% and deduction of ½ of the income towards
personal expenses held by the Tribunal are found to be proper.
12. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680
and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is being
recomputed as below:-
Sl. Particulars Calculation
No.
1. Monthly income of the deceased 5517
2. Yearly income 66204
3. Future prospects(40% of the 26481.6 in round figure
income) 26482
4. Total 92686
5. Personal expenses (1/2 of the 46343
income)
6. Annual loss of dependency 46343
7. Total loss of dependency (applying 46343 x 18 = 834174
multiplier of 18)
8. Funeral Expenses 15000
9. Loss of estate 15000
10. Filial consortium 40000
Total compensation Rs.9,04,174
13. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.9,04,174/- from
which after deduction of Rs.6,90,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal,
the enhancement would be Rs.2,13,774/-.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The claimant is entitled for the
enhanced amount of Rs.2,13,774/- in addition to what is already
awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its
realization. It is made clear that the insurance company is liable to
pay the compensation. The impugned award stands modified to the
above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.
15. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant 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 resides.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai
