1 2025:CGHC:2095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 91 of 2017 • Branch Manager, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Kirti Complex, Rajendra Nagar Park, Link Road, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present- 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar Press Complex, Police Station Maudahapara, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle Pick-Up Registration No. UP-62-T-3706) ---Appellant versus 1. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Ramesh Gupta, aged about 24 Years, Profession- Business, R/o Ward No.13, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Road, Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Abhimanyu Singh, S/o Ajit Singh, aged about 20 Years, Profession- Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Bardih, Police Station and Tahsil Dhaurpur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle Pick-Up Registration No. UP-62-T-3706) 3. Teshlal Yadav, S/o Chhatu Yadav, aged about 35 Years, Profession- Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Patora, Police Station and Tahsil Lundra, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle Pick-Up Registration No. UP-62-T-3706) --- Respondents MAC No. 1693 of 2016 • Jitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Ramesh Gupta, Occupation- Business, R/o Ward No.13, Sarashwati Shishu Mandir Road Ramanujganj P.S. Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ---Appellant Versus 1. Abhimanyu Singh, S/o Ajit Singh, aged about 20 Years, Occupation- Driver Pickup No. U.P.62/T/3706 R/o Village Bardih, P.S. and Tahsil Dhourpur Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.01.15 10:53:32 +0530 2 2. Teshlal Yadav, S/o Chhatu Yadav, aged about 35 Years, Occupation- Owner of Pickup No. U.P. 62/T/3706, R/o Village- Patora P.S. and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Branch Manager, Magma H D I General Insurance Company Ltd. Kriti- Complex Rajendranagar Park Link Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Claimant : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Owner & Driver : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Judgment on Board 13/01/2025 1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimant respectively arise out of same accident that took place on 30.12.2013, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 30.12.2013 at about 1:30 pm, claimant/injured-Jitendra Kumar Gupta was going to Ambikapur from Ramanujganj on motorcycle. However, on way, when he reached near Parsha Shiv Temple, driver of the pick-up bearing registration No.UP62-T-3706 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of claimant, as a result of which, claimant-Jitendra Kumar sustained grievous injuries over his body. Thereafter, claimant was taken to District Hospital, Ambikapur for primary treatment and after that, he was admitted in Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur for four days and looking to his pitiable condition, he was referred to Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur where he was admitted from 03.01.2014 to 07.01.2024 3 and after that, he also took treatment in different hospitals. At the time of accident, the said offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and was insured with non-applicant No.3. 3. On account of injuries sustained by the claimant, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by him seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.36,20,000/- under various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, claimant-Jitendra Kumar Gupta was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running a transport business and was also engaged in the work of buying and selling agricultural products. However, the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja, District Ambikapur. in Motor Accident Claim Case No.90/2015 vide award dated 28.09.2016, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,24,050/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Against the said award, Insurance Company and claimant are before this Court by filing appeals separately. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.91/2017 submits that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company because at the time of accident, the Driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence since the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle whereas the driver of offending vehicle was holding a licence of LMV, MCWG & tractor for non-transport vehicle and there was no endorsement on the licence authorizing the driver to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, it is urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. He 4 further submits that the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence available on record, has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-, which is on higher side and needs to be reduced suitably. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant/injured supports the impugned award with respect to fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company. In MAC No.1693/2016, she submits that as per the document (Ex.P-96) income tax return filed by the claimant for the AY (2012-2013), it is evident that the total annual income of the claimant was Rs.1,91,110/-, but the Tribunal did not consider the same and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which needs to be enhanced suitably. She further submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount to the claimant towards special diet and attendant as the claimant took continuous treatment in different hospitals. She also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is also on lower side, which requires to be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel for the owner & driver of offending vehicle, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned award, supports the impugned award and submits that as per insurance policy (Ex.D-2), the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle is 2300 kg, which is below 7,500 kg and that no endorsement is required to drive the offending vehicle. In this regard, She placed reliance upon a decision in the matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, which judgment still holds the field, as per decision of the five-judge Bench's recent order of the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Bajaj Alliance 5 General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s) 841/2018 decided on 06.11.2024. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. MAC No.91/2017 filed by the Insurance Company 8. Now, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company or not. 9. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company which was valid from 04.07.2013 to 03.07.2014 as per insurance policy (Ex.D-2). As per Ex.D-1, i.e. extract of driving licence of non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle and the statement of NAW-1 Ramnath Ram, Assistant Grade-III, RTO Office, Ambikapur, it is evident that non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle was having a licence for motorcycle with gear, LMV and Tractor (non-transport) which was effective from 05.09.2012 to 03.09.2032 and the accident occurred in this case on 30.12.2013 and as per Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), the gross vehicle weight of offending vehicle is 2300 kg and NAW-2 Dushendra Kumar Verma, Senior Executive of concerned Insurance Company, has also admitted in his cross-examination that pick-up/offending vehicle comes in the category of light motor vehicle. In the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the Supreme Court has held that a person holding LMV (non-transport) is competent to drive the transport vehicle even without there being any endorsement to this effect in the driving licence if the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kg. The relevant paragraphs 60.1, 60.2 and 60.4 of the aforesaid decision is being reproduced as under:- 6 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 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 roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving license 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 roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving license for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 10. Further, the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment passed on 06.11.2024 in the matter of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), held that the principles laid down in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) shall continue to hold the field. 11. In view of aforesaid legal preposition, it is evident that on the date of accident, non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle, who was having a licence for MCWG, LMV & tractor (non-transport), was fully competent to drive the offending vehicle without there being any requirement of such endorsement in his driving licence for driving the said vehicle as its gross weight is much below 7,500 kg as has been held in the matter of Mukund Dewangan & M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) and the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability 7 upon Insurance Company, being based on evidence and material brought on record, is a correct finding of fact, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. MAC No.1693/2016 filed by the claimant 12.As regards the income of the claimant/injured, though the claimant in the claim petition has pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running a transport business and was also engaged in the work of buying and selling agricultural products and for proving the said fact, he has filed income tax return for the AY 2012-2013 dated 15.01.2013 i.e. prior to incident where his annual income has been shown as Rs.1,91,110/- and the other relevant documents, however, the Tribunal did not consider the documents filed by the claimant and on its own, assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-, which in my opinion, is on lower side. Therefore, looking to the document (Ex.P-96) income tax return filed by the claimant for the AY year 2012- 2013 dated 15.01.2013 and the nature of work of the claimant, I propose to recompute the income of claimant at Rs.15,925/- per month. Therefore, claimant is entitled for Rs.95,550/- (Rs.15,925/- x 6) for loss of earning for six months. 13.As regards the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, a perusal of the record would reveal that indisputably due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/non-applicant No.1, claimant sustained grievous injuries over his body and AW-4 Dr. Arvind Paik, who upon examination, also found that the injuries sustained by the claimant was grievous in nature. In cross-examination, he also admitted that since there was no neuro-surgeon in his hospital, he referred the claimant for better treatment, for which he had to take 8 treatment in Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur where he remained from 03.01.2014 to 07.01.2014 and further he took treatment in Shiva & Shiva Orthopedic Hospital, Bangalore and other hospitals, as is evident from the documents (Exs.P-7 & P-76) filed by him. During hospitalization and treatment, appellant must have suffered pain and suffering owing to injuries sustained by him and must have incurred expenses for getting better treatment. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed and granted Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and proper as the claimant sustained serious injuries for which he had to take treatment in different hospitals. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant, the period of his hospitalization in different hospitals & places and the expenses incurred by him, ends of justice would be served, if the claimant is granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering in place of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. 14.Further, taking into account the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant and also Rs.20,000/- towards special diet. Thus, a total amount under the above heads would come to Rs.40,000/-. In addition to above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,34,050/- towards treatment, medicine and transportation, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. 15. In this way, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 9 S. No. Heads Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income of the claimant/injured for six months Rs.15,925/- x 6 = Rs.95,550/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- 3. Special Diet and Attendant Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each) 4. Treatment, medicine and transportation Rs.4,34,050/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) Total Compensation Rs.6,29,600/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,24,050/- after deducting the same from Rs.6,29,600/-, the claimant/injured is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,05,550/-, which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, MAC No.91/2017 filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas MAC No.1693/2016 filed by the claimant/injured is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh