[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Savitri Kashyap vs Mohd. Moienuddin Khan on 17 March, 2026

                                                     1


SATISH
TUMANE




Digitally
signed by
SATISH

                                                                               2026:CGHC:12717
TUMANE
Date:
2026.03.17
17:51:37
+0530
                                                                                         NAFR

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          Reserved on 10.03.2026
                                         Pronounced on 17.03.2026

                                          MAC No.1566 of 2018

             Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-E-8, I.P. Ricco
             Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302022 Local Address : 4th
             Floor, Maruti Height, G.E. Road, Near Sky Automobile, Mahoba Bazaar,
             Raipur (Chhattisgarh)...........(Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.-04-J.A./8804)
                                                                                  --- Appellant
                                                   versus
             1 - Smt. Savitri Kashyap W/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 28
             Years,
             2 - Aayu Kashyap S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 08 Years,
             3 - Smt. Savitri Kashyap W/o Late Laxmi Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 60
             Years,
             Respondent No.2 Minor represented through natural guardian mother

respondent No.1 Smt. Savitri Kashyap, All R/o Mahamayapara, Ratanpur, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............(Claimants) 4 - Moh. Muinuddin Khan S/o Moh. Habib Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Satnam Nagar, Near Vinay Kirana Stores, Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver Of Truck No. C.G.-04-J.A./8804) 5 - Moh. Habib Khan S/o Late Moh. Sade Khan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Satnam Nagar, Near Vinay Kirana Stores, Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattigarh)...............(Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-04-J.A./8804)

--- Respondent(s)

1 - Smt. Savitri Kashyap Wd/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years,

2 - Ayu Kashyap S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kashyap Aged About 8 Years, 3 - Smt. Savitri Kashyap Wd/o Late Laxmi Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 60 Years All R/o Mahamaya Para, Ratanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Mohd. Moienuddin Khan S/o Mohd. Habib Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Satnam Nagar, Nearby Vinay Kirana Store, Telibandha, Raipur, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohd. Habib Khan S/o Late Mohd. Sade Khan, R/o Satnam Nagar, Nearby Vinay Kirana Store, Telibandha, Raipur, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, E-8, I.P. Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022. Local Address - 4th Floor Maruti Height, G.E. Road, Nearby Sky Automobile Mahoba Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents/Non-Applicants

For Appellant : Shri Sourabh Sharma appears along with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

While none for others, though served

For Appellants : Shri Qamrul Aziz, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Sourabh Sharma appears along with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocates While none for others, though served

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

C A V Order

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common award, dated

18/05/2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.664/2016,

whereby, a sum of Rs.8,26,000/- has been awarded to the claimants

with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till its realization, while fastening the liability upon the

Insurance Company, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions

before the Claims Tribunal.

2. In MAC No.1566/2018, the non-applicant No.3-Shriram General

Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance

Company') has questioned the award impugned for its exoneration as

liability to indemnify the insured has been fastened upon it, while the

appeal, being MAC No.191/2019, has been preferred by the claimants

for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 07/07/2016 around

11.30 P.M., one Mahesh Prasad Kashyap, the husband of claimant

No.1, namely, Smt. Savitri Kashyap, was coming by his motorcycle

bearing Registration No.C.G.-10/EQ/6699 from the village Ratanpur

and, as soon as he reached at Village Ochhinapara near the bypass

road Ratanpur, he was dashed vehemently, owing to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-Truck bearing

Registration No.C.G.-04/J.A./8804, namely Mohd. Moinuddin Khan,

owned by Mohd. Habib Khan, the non-applicant No.1 and non-

applicant No.2 respectively, which was insured by the Insurance

Company-non-applicant No.3. As a result of the alleged incident, the

deceased sustained serious injuries and died, which led to filing of the

claim petition by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988'), claiming

total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.26,76,000/- as,

according to them, said Mahesh Prasad Kashyap, was 35 years old,

and, was a Mason by profession and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per

month.

4. The non-applicants No.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle

in question were proceeded ex-parte, while the non-applicant No.3-

Insurance Company in its written statement, has denied specifically

the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the alleged incident

and, contended further that since the driver of it was not holding a

valid and effective driving license at the relevant point of time,

therefore, the alleged offending vehicle was being driven in violation of

the insurance policy, as such, no liability could be fastened upon it.

5. In support of the claim, the claimant No.1-Smt. Savitri Kashyap was

examined herself, apart from other of her witnesses, while none was

examined by the non-applicants and, the Claims Tribunal, upon

considering the evidence led by the claimants, arrived at a conclusion

that the alleged incident was occurred on the said fateful day owing to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle

and, held further, that since the claimants have failed to prove that the

deceased was a Mason by profession and used to earn Rs.12,000/-

per month and, therefore, by assessing his monthly income as

Rs.4,500/-, awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.8,26,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

filing of the claim petition till its realization while fastening the liability

upon the Insurance Company as the Insurance Company has failed to

lead any evidence to establish its defence and, being aggrieved, the

instant appeals have been preferred.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in appeal, being MAC

No.1566/2018, submits that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the

vehicle in question was involved in connection with the alleged

incident is apparently contrary to the materials available on record.

While inviting attention to the seizure memo (Ex.A-9), submits that

since the vehicle in question was seized much after the occurrence of

the alleged incident on 16/10/2016, therefore, it ought to have been

held that the vehicle in question was not involved in connection with

the alleged incident. It is contented further that since the driver of the

alleged offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective

driving license, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the

Insurance Company on account of the breach of policy committed by

the Insured, the non-applicant No.2-Mohd. Habib Khan. While, the

counsel appearing for the claimants in their appeal, being MAC

No.191/2019, submits that since the amount of compensation has not

been awarded while taking note of the principles laid down by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and

Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the amount of

compensation is, therefore, liable to be enhanced.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the entire record.

8. Insofar as the appeal, being MAC No.1566/2018, preferred by the

Insurance Company is concerned, it appears that although the

involvement of the vehicle in question has been denied, as the same

was seized on 16/10/2016, i.e. after passing of considerable period of

more than three months from the occurrence of the alleged incident,

as also because the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not

holding the valid driving license, but, in order to establish the alleged

fact, no evidence was, however, led by the Insurance Company,

though the burden was heavily upon it to establish the same. In such

circumstances and, in absence of any evidence led by the Insurance

Company, the Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any illegality in

fastening the liability upon it, so as to call for any interference in this

appeal.

9. Now, insofar as the appeal preferred by the claimants is concerned, it

appears that the just and proper compensation payable to the

claimants has, however, not been awarded to them. According to the

claimants, the deceased-Mahesh Prasad Kashyap was a Mason by

profession and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month, but in order to

establish the said fact, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led

by the claimants, so as to hold that he was a Mason by profession or

his monthly income was Rs.12,000/-, as alleged by the claimants.

Although, the claimants have failed to prove that he was working as a

Mason and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month, but a bare perusal of

the testimony of his wife, namely, Smt. Savitri Kashyap (AW-1), it

appears that he was working as a labourer. In such circumstances, it

would be appropriate to consider the deceased's income as of semi-

skilled worker, as provided under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As

the alleged incident was occurred on 07/07/2016, it would, therefore,

be appropriate to consider his monthly income to the tune of

Rs.6,107/-, yearly Rs.73,284/-. Since the deceased was 38 years old,

as revealed from the postmortem report (Ex.A-5), therefore, while

determining his actual income, an addition of 40% of it, i.e. Rs.29,314/-

towards future prospects of his income is to be added, in the light of

the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of

Pranay Sethi (supra). It would, thus, comes to Rs.1,02,598/-

(Rs.73,284/- + Rs.29,314/-) and, as the claimants are three in number

and were dependent upon him, deduction of 1/3rd of it, i.e. Rs.34,200/-

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be

appropriate and, the yearly dependency of the claimants would, thus,

comes to Rs.68,398/- (Rs.1,02,598/-- Rs.34,200/-). By applying the

multiplier of 15, looking to the age of the deceased, in view of the

principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of

Sarla Verma (Smt.) (supra), the total dependency, would, thus, comes

to Rs.10,25,970/- (Rs.68,398 x 15), instead of Rs.7,56,000/- as

awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

10. It is to be seen further that the consortium compensation of

Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to the widow of the deceased only,

apart from funeral expenses as well as the loss of estate @

Rs.15,000/- each, but, the mother (claimant No.3) and son (claimant

No.2) of the deceased are also entitled to consortium compensation at

the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, in the light of the principles laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and

others (supra), with an enhancement of 10% every three years, as

held in the said matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, the

claimants are entitled to amount of compensation towards the

conventional heads, as under :-

      S. No.       Modes of Compensation                 Amount (In Rs.)

      1.       For loss of spousal consortium to        Rs.40,000/-
               widow of the deceased             (already awarded by the
                                                      Claims Tribunal)
      2.       For loss of parental consortium to          Rs. 52,000/-
               son of the deceased (@ 40,000/-
               with an enhancement of 10% in
               every three year, for nine years)
      3.       For loss of filial consortium to the        Rs. 52,000/-
               mother of the deceased
               (@ 40,000/- with an enhancement
               of 10% in every three year, for nine
               years)
      4.       For funeral expenses                          Rs.15,000/-
                                                      (as already awarded by
                                                      the Claims Tribunal)
      5.       For loss of estate                            Rs.15,000/-
                                                      (as already awarded by
                                                      the Claims Tribunal)
                            TOTAL                          Rs.1,74,000/-

11. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of

Rs.11,99,970/- (Rs.10,25,970/- + Rs.1,74,000/-) along with interest @

6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.

22/11/2016, till the date of actual payment. Out of the said amount, the

claimant No.1, namely, Smt. Savitri Kashyap (widow of the deceased),

would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, the claimant No.2, namely,

Aayu Kashyap (son of the deceased), would be entitled to a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/-, while the claimant No.3, namely, Smt. Savitri Kashyap

(mother of the deceased), would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,89,970/-

along with the said interest and, the same shall be disbursed to them

as per the direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal.

12. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeal, being MAC