1 2025:CGHC:42590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 351 of 2022 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Infront Of Church Shankar Ward, Main Road, Bhatapara, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through - Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Dr. Rajendra Park Chowk, Parmanand Building, G.E. Road, Near Petrol Pump, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rita Verma W/o Thaneshwar Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, P.S. - Purani Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Thaneshwar Verma S/o Late Peelaram Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, P.S. - Purani Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dushyant Verma S/o Thaneshwar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, P.S. - Purani Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shukdev Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Acc Jamul, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Hyva Truck No. Cg-04jc-8369) 2 5 - Sanjay Chouhan S/o Sudama Chouhan Aged About 36 Years R/o - (1) Ward No. 17, Qr. No. 51, Infront Of Bhilai Wire, Rajiv Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (Chhattisgarh) (2) Acc Main Gate, Rajiv Nagar, Jamul, Durg Chhattisgarh. (3) Through Mahalaxmi Motors Near Fruit Mandi, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (-Owner Of Hyva Truk No. Cg-04jc-8369) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 :Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents 4 & 5 :Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 20.08.2025 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30/10/2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), the appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) whereby compensation of Rs. 18,12,160/- has been awarded to the claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). Cross-objection has also been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3 2. Mr. H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would raise a solitary submission that the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the owner i.e. respondent No. 5 herein namely Sanjay Chouhan on 8/11/2016, however, the permit was not transferred, though it was valid upto 17/11/2021, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others1 and submit that at the most, the Claims Tribunal could have directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to firstly pay the compensation to the Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, however, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) in absence of valid permit, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting less compensation as per the facts and circumstances of the case. Future prospect as calculated 40% by the Claims Tribunal ought to be 50% 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 4 and moreover, both respondents No. 1 and 2, being mother and father of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, however, the Claims Tribunal has only granted Rs. 40,000/- to both of them. Therefore, the cross-objection of the respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, would support the impugned award and submit that though the permit was subsequently renewed from 18/11/2016 till 17/11/2021 in the name of respondent No. 5 Sanjay Chouhan, but the earlier permit was already existing in the name of erstwhile owner Neetu Vachhani which was valid from 24/06/2012 till 23/06/2017 (Ex. D/7), therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was bing plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5 Discussion on appeal filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) 6. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of Sanjay Chouhan i.e. respondent No. 5 herein on 08/11/2016 and thereafter, on an application made by him, the permit was renewed for the period starting from 18/11/2016 till 17/11/2021 which was granted in his favour on 17/11/2016, however, the accident occurred on 10/11/2016. 7. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation even though the accident occurred on 10/11/2016 and the permit was transferred in the name of the Sanjay Chouhan i.e. respondent No. 5 herein on 17/11/2016 ? 8. In this regard, Section 82 of the Act of 1988 may be noticed herein profitably which defines transfer of permit as under :- “82. Transfer of permit. - (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. 6 (2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself : Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the transport authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.” 9. A careful perusal of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 would show that a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and Section 82(1) also reiterates that it shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 is pari materia to provision contained under Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 7 1939 and as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Ravi Roadways v. Asia BI and Others2, Exercise of the power to sanction the transfer of a permit under Section 59(1) of the Act of 1939 is quasi-judicial, and the State Government is not competent to impose any restriction upon the exercise of that power by issuing executive instructions. As such, unless the permit is transferred in the name of new owner, it cannot operate automatically in his favour even though the vehicle has been transferred in his name. 10. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988, it is quite vivid that though the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of Sanjay Chouhan i.e. respondent No. 5 herein but the permit was neither transferred by the Transport Authority in his favour nor it was sought by him and it was subsequently renewed at the instance of respondent No. 5 herein from 18/11/2016 to 17/11/2021, therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 10/11/2016, the permit was not operative in his name and the permit already issued in favour of the erstwhile owner namely Neelu Vachhani would stand lapsed and would cease to operate in light of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988. Thus, it can safely be concluded that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being plied in 2 1970 (2) SCC 259 8 breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such, the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable to make payment for compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants. 11. In view of the reasons mentioned herein-above, the impugned judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal to the extent of fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set aside. However, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the appellant (Insurance Company) is directed to firstly pay the amount of compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 herein. Discussion on cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants 12. Learned Claims Tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has proceeded to grant a compensation of Rs. 18,12,160/- to respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants, however, future prospect ought to have been granted 50% and under the head of loss of consortium, Rs. 40,000/- each ought to have been granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. mother and father of the 9 deceased whereas only Rs. 40,000/- has been granted by the Claims Tribunal. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 5 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 12,200/- x 12 = Rs. 1,46,400/- Rs. 12,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,46,400/- 2. Deduction (-) ½ = Rs. 73,200/- (-) ½ = Rs. 73,200/- 3. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 29,280/- = Rs. 1,02,480/- (+)50% i.e. Rs.36,600/- = Rs. 1,09,800/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = Rs. 17,42,160/- (x) 17 = Rs. 18,66,600/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 18,12,160/- Rs. 19,76,600/- 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 18,12,160/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,76,600/-. Hence, after 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 10 deducting the amount of Rs. 18,12,160/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,64,440/-. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 22/11/2016 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant (Insurance Company) is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants and the cross- objection filed by the claimants is also enhanced and the impugned award is enhanced and modified to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet