[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Durga Yadav on 20 March, 2026
1
AFR
Digitally
signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.20
15:00:49 MAC No. 1608 of 2016
+0530
Judgment Reserved on : 28/02/2026
Judgment Delivered on :20/03/2026
National Insurance Company Limited, Bhootani Complex, G.E.Road, Power
House Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Through- Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Aakashganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg,
Chhattisgarh ................Non-Applicant No.3,
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Durga Yadav Wd/o Late Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 25 Years,
2 - Ku. Kalpana Yadav, D/o Late Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 3 Years,
3 - Ku. Geetanjali, D/o Late Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 2 Years,
4 - Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Late Kunwar Singh Yadav, Aged About 55 Years,
5 - Smt. Pramila Yadav W/o Mohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 50 Years,
6 - Chhannu Yadav S/o Late Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 7 Years,
Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 6 are minor through their mother Smt. Durga Yadav
(Respondent No.1)
All are R/o Village Hinganadih, P.O. Ahiwara, P.S. Nandni, Tah. Dhamdha,
Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh
7 - Nandlal Sahu S/o Balaram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Kapsada, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Driver/Non-Applicant
No.1,
8 - Tribhuwan Pande S/o Jaikishan Pande, R/o Quarter No. 137/ F, Risali
Sector, Bhilai, Tah. and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, Owner/Non-Applicant No.2,
... Respondents
AND
National Insurance Company Limited, Bhootani Complex, G.E.Road, Power
House Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Through- Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Aakashganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg,
Chhattisgarh ................Non-Applicant No.3,
Versus
1 - Santosh Yadav, S/o Late Shankar Yadav, Aged About 42 Years,
2 - Smt. Tijan Bai Yadav, W/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 40 Years,
3 - Ku. Laxmi Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 20 Years,
4 - Ku. Pratibha Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 14 Years,
5 - Ku. Seema Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 14 Years,
Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are minor through their Father Santosh Yadav
Respondent No.1,
All are R/o Village Hinganadih, P.O. Ahiwara, P.S. Nandni, Tah. Dhamdha,
Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh .................Applicant No.5,
6 - Nandlal Sahu S/o Balaram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Kapsada, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Driver/Non-Applicant
No.1,
7 - Tribhuwan Pande S/o Jaikishan Pande, R/o Quarter No. 137/ F, Risali
Sector, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Owner/Non-Applicant No.2,
--- Respondents
AND
1 - Santosh Yadav, S/o Late Shankar Yadav, Aged About 42 Years,
2 - Smt. Tijan Bai W/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 40 Years,
3 - Ku. Laxmi Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 20 Years
4 - Ku. Pratibha Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 14 Years,
5 - Ku. Seema Yadav D/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 14 Years,
Appellant Nos.4 & 5 are minor through their Father Santosh Yadav ( Appellant
No.1)
All are R/o Village Hinganadih, Post Ahiwara, Police Station Nandini, Tehsil
Dhamdha and District Durg, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants,
---Appellants
Versus
1 - Nandlal Sahu S/o Balaram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Kapasda, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Driver
of Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
2 - Tribhuvan Pandey S/o Jaikishan Pandey, R/o Quarter No. 137/ F, Risali
Sector Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Owner of
Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Bhootani Complex, G.E.Road,
Power House Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Aakashganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh ................Insurer of Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
--- Respondents
AND
1 - Smt. Durga Yadav W/o Late Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 25 Years,
2 - Ku. Kalpana Yadav D/o Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 3 Years,
3 - Ku. Geetanjali D/o Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 2 Years,
4 - Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Late Kunwar Singh Yadav, Aged About 55 Years,
5 - Smt. Pramila Yadav W/o Mohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 50 Years,
6 - Channu Yadav S/o Ajay Kumar Yadav, Aged About 7 Months, Minor
Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 6 are minor through their Mother Smt. Durga Yadav
(Appellant No.1),
All are R/o Village Hinganadih, Post Ahiwara, Police Station Nandini, Tehsil
Dhamdha and District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants
---Appellants
Versus
1 - Nandlal Sahu, S/o Balaram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Kapasda, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Driver
of Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
2 - Tribhuvan Pandey, S/o Jaikishan Pandey, R/o Quarter No. 137/ F, Risali
Sector Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Owner of
Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Bhootani Complex, G.E.Road,
Power House Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Aakashganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg,
Chhattisgarh ................Insurer of Vehicle 407 No. C.G.08-B-1403,
--- Respondents
For Appellants (in MAC No.1608/2016 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta along with Mr.
& 1609/2016) Pravesh Sahu, Advocates
For Respondent No.1 to to 6 (in MAC : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on
No.1608/2016) and Respondent No.1 behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav,
to 5 (in MAC No.1609/2016) Advocate
For Respondent No.7 & 8 (in MAC : None
No.1608/2016) and Respondent No.6
to 7 (in MAC No.1609/2016).
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,
CAV Judgment
1. As above captioned appeals arise out of same accident that occurred
on 11.12.2013, they are being heard and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. MAC No. 379/2017 and MAC No. 380/2017 have been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation against
the award dated 31.08.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.
76/2015 and Claim Case No. 77/2015, whereby total compensation of
Rs. 11,97,648/- and Rs. 8,14,000/- respectively was awarded for the
death of Ajay Kumar Yadav & Shyamlal Yadav, along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening the
liability upon non-applicant No. 3 - National Insurance Company
Limited.
Likewise, MAC No. 1608/2016 and MAC No. 1609/2016 have been
preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the validity
and legality of the impugned award with regard to the fastening of
liability to pay the compensation upon it.
3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 11.12.2013, the
deceased Ajay Kumar Yadav (MAC No.380/2017) and Shyamlal Yadav
(MAC No.379/2017) had gone separately on their respective bicycles to
distribute milk. At about 7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., while they were
returning to their homes on their bicycles, proceeding on the left side of
the road, on the Ahivara-Kumhari Road, the vehicle - 407 bearing
registration No. CG-08-B-1403 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending
vehicle"), driven by Non-applicant No. 01/Nandlal Sahu, came at a high
speed. It is alleged that the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the bicycles of the deceased Ajay Kumar
Yadav and Shyamlal Yadav, and in that event, both sustained grievous
and fatal injuries and fell on the road. They were immediately taken to
the District Hospital, Durg for medical treatment. However, during the
course of treatment, the attending doctors declared Ajay Kumar Yadav
and Shyamlal Yadav dead. At the time of accident, the offending
vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 - Tribhuvan Pandey and
insured with non-applicant No.3 - National Insurance Company
Limited. As per the claim petition, deceased Ajay Kumar Yadav was a
mason and dairy worker, aged about 28 years and was earning
Rs.7,500/- per month, whereas, deceased Shyamlal Yadav was also a
mason, aged about 17 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.22,61,600/-
(in case of deceased Ajay Kumar Yadav) and Rs.21,24,000/- (in case
of deceased Shyamlal Yadav), the Tribunal, considering the evidence
led by the parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 2 of
this judgment. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants
have filed separate appeals for enhancement. Similarly, non-applicant
No.3/insurance company has also filed these appeals against the
impugned award with regard to fastening of liability upon it.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned
Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased
persons at Rs.4,500/- per month. The deceased Ajay Kumar Yadav
was a mason and a dairy worker, and was earning Rs.7,500/- per
month, whereas, deceased Shyamlal Yadav was also a mason, and
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As such, looking to the nature of
their work, their monthly income deserves to be increased suitably. He
further submitted that the amount awarded towards the conventional
heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi
and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted
that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle did not possess a
valid fitness certificate and was, therefore, being plied in violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 27 of the
impugned award holding that the Insurance Company cannot be
exonerated from its statutory liability merely on the ground that the
offending vehicle, allegedly lacked a valid fitness certificate, is stated to
be erroneous. Counsel additionally submitted that since the deceased
persons were below 40 years of age and were self-employed, the
addition towards future prospects ought to be 40% instead of 50% as
awarded by the Tribunal. In support of his contentions, reliance has
been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
(2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra)
; and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Aadesh and
Another v. Smt. Satarupa Bai Yadav and Others dated 19.11.2020.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
8. To deal with the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, it would be apt to discuss the evidence available on record.
Firstly, the question for consideration would be whether on the date of
accident, the driver/owner of the offending vehicle had possessed the
valid and effective fitness certificate?
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased, namely Ajay Kumar Yadav and
Shyamlal Yadav, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the motor
vehicular accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Non-
Applicant No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, which was owned by
Non-Applicant No.2, Tribhuvan Pandey. With regard to the fitness
certificate of the offending vehicle, NAW-3(1), Hitesh Rao, Assistant
Grade-III, Additional RTO, Durg, was examined. He deposed that he
had produced the computerized record of the said vehicle obtained
from the RTO Office, Durg, which was exhibited as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.
According to his statement, on the date of the incident, i.e., 11.12.2013,
the offending vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate. He
stated that the fitness certificate was valid from 15.11.2011 to
14.11.2012, thereafter from 07.12.2012 to 06.12.2013, and again from
16.12.2013 to 15.12.2014.
A perusal of Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 reveals that the fitness certificate of
the offending vehicle was valid from 15.11.2011 to 14.11.2012,
thereafter from 07.12.2012 to 06.12.2013, and subsequently from
16.12.2013 to 15.12.2014, whereas the alleged accident occurred on
11.12.2013. From the exhibited documents, it is not evident that the
offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective fitness certificate on
the date of the accident.
10. That apart, when there is specific averment on the part of insurance
company of offending vehicle that on the date of accident, offending
vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate, the question arise for
consideration of this Court is whether on the ground of absence of
fitness certificate Insurance Company can be absolved from its liability.
11. Requirement of certificate of fitness is envisaged under Section 56 of
the Act of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 56 (1) is reproduced
below for ready reference :-
"Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport
vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the
purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness
in such form containing such particulars and information as
may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the
prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station
mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle
complies for the time being with all the requirements of this
Act and the rules made thereunder:
Provided that where the prescribed authority or the
"authorized testing station" refuses to issue such certificate, it
shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing
for such refusal."
12. Perusal of above provision would show that unless and until there is
valid certificate of fitness, transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be
validly registered. Requirement of certificate of fitness is mandatory
and fundamental for its registration. Section 39 of the Act of 1988
envisages for registration of vehicle, which reads as under :-
"39. Necessity for registration. --No person shall drive
any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall
cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public
place or in any other place unless the vehicle is
registered in accordance with this Chapter and the
certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been
suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a
registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner :
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to
a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to
such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central
Government."
13. It prescribes that no person shall drive any motor vehicle in public or
other places unless vehicle is registered. Conjoint reading of provisions
of Section 39 and 56 of the Act of 1988 makes it clear that if the
transport vehicle is plied on public road or any place without certificate
of fitness will be in breach of policy condition and such breach will be a
fundamental breach.
14. This issue has been considered by the five judges Bench of Kerala
High Court in case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2019 Kerala 9 and held thus :-
"17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly
substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid
Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The
above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of
Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of
Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in
the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot
be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be
completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which
otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of
passengers and the general public, apart from damage to
property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness
Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of
Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under
Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness
Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for
the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that
nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven
without valid registration in public place or such other place,
as the case may be. These requirements are quite
'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport
vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity
or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than
the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was
plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the
route permit which instances could rather be branded as
'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle
is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having
no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not
having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such
vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle
compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the
passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of
passengers and general public was of serious concern and
consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate
measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in
the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would
constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the
position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a
fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any
interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of
the law makers."
15. In view of very specific aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1988
and above cited judgment, it has been held that, absence of fitness
certificate for the offending vehicle is fundamental breach of policy
condition.
16. In light of the aforementioned evidence, coupled with the decision of
this Court in the cases referred to above, I am of the view that there
has been a breach of the policy conditions at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are liable to
pay compensation to the claimants, and the appellant - the insurance
company is exonerated from its liability on the ground that, on the date
of the accident, the offending vehicle did not have a valid fitness
certificate.
17. With regard to the payment of compensation, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the fact that the deceased persons
were third parties, hence, taking support of judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh and another v.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported
in (2018) 7 SCC 558, it would be appropriate to direct the Insurance
Company to first deposit the entire amount of compensation alongwith
interest and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of
offending vehicle in accordance with law.
18. So far as appeals filed by appellants/claimants for enhancement of
amount of compensation is concerned, claimants (in MAC
No.380/2017) have very specially pleaded in their claim petition that on
the date of accident, deceased Ajay Kumar Yadav was aged about 28
years and working as a mason and dairy worker thereby earning
Rs.7,500/- per month, but they failed to produce any admissible piece
of evidence in this regard. In absence thereof, the Tribunal has
assessed income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.
Similarly, the claimants (in MAC No.379/2017) have very specially
pleaded in their claim petition that on the date of accident, deceased
Shyamlal Yadav was aged about 17 years and working as mason a as
well as contractor, thereby earing Rs.6,000/- per month, but they failed
to produce any admissible piece of evidence in this regard. In absence
thereof, the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.4,500/-
per month. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly
income of the deceased persons at Rs. 4,500/- is not just and proper.
Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages provisions and the nature
of work of the deceased persons, I propose to recompute the monthly
income of the deceased persons at Rs.5,163/- i.e. Rs.61,956/- per
annum respectively.
19. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% amount towards future
prospects of the deceased persons, which is not in accordance with the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi
(supra) wherein it was prescribed that for the age below 40 years, the
applicable loss of future prospects would be 40% for the self-employed
persons. Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased Ajay Kumar
Yadav i.e. 30 years, and deceased Shyamlal Yadav i.e. 17 years, as
considered by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards their
future prospects would be 40% instead of 50%. So far as application of
multiplier is concerned, there is no dispute on it. Further, taking the
guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in
the following manner:-
MAC No.380 of 2017:-
Sl. Heads Calculation
No. (in rupees)
01. Income of the deceased Ajay Rs.61,956/- per annum
Kumar Yadav @ Rs.5,163/- per
month
02. 40% of (1) above to be added Rs.24,782/-
towards future prospects.
Rs.61,956 + Rs.24,782 =
Rs.86,730/-
03. ¼ deduction towards personal Rs.21,604/-
and living expenses of the
Rs.86,730 - Rs.21,604 =
deceased
Rs.65,126/-
04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.65,126 x 17 = Rs.11,07,142/-
05. Towards Conventional Heads Rs.2,70,000/-
(loss of estate, funeral expenses
and loss of consortium)
Total Compensation Rs.13,77,142/-
20. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.11,97,648/-, after deducting
the same from Rs.13,77,142/-, the appellants/claimants (in MAC
No.380/2017) are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,79,494/-,
which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the
ratio of disbursement made by the Tribunal in the impugned award
shall remain intact.
MAC No.379/2017:-
Sl. Heads Calculation
No. (in rupees)
01. Income of the deceased Shyamlal Rs.61,956/- per annum
Yadav @ Rs.5,163/- per month
02. 40% of (1) above to be added Rs.24,782/-
towards future prospects.
Rs.61,956 + Rs.24,782 =
Rs.86,730/-
03. 1/2 deduction towards personal Rs.43,365/-
and living expenses of the
Rs.86,730 - Rs.43,365 =
deceased
Rs.43,365/-
04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied Rs.43,365 x 18 = Rs.7,80,570/-
05. Towards Conventional Heads Rs.2,30,000/-
(loss of estate, funeral expenses
and loss of consortium)
Total Compensation Rs.10,10,570/-
21. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,14,000/-, after deducting
the same from Rs.10,10,570/-, the appellants/claimants (in MAC
No.379/2017) are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,96,570/-,
which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. It is directed that
the Insurance Company shall first deposit the entire amount of
compensation alongwith interest and thereafter, recover the same from
owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with law. However,
the ratio of disbursement made by the Tribunal in the impugned award
shall remain intact.
22. In the result, all the above captioned appeals are allowed in part with
the modification in the impugned award to the above extent.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Prakash
