1 2025:CGHC:17310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1205 of 2019 1 - Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Harimohan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Yatharth Senior, In Front Of HIG- 170, DD Nagar, Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner of Truck No. CG-04-JD-0698). --- Appellant versus 1 - Amrit Bai W/o Jawaharlal Dhritlahre Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Diggi, Police Station- Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pradeep S/o Jawaharlal Dhritlahre Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Amrit Bai, R/o Village Diggi, Police Station- Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Rekha D/o Jawaharlal Dhritlahre Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Amrit Bai, R/o Village Diggi, Police Station- Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mohammed Shaif S/o Jamaludiin Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Police Station Gahmar, District Gajipur Uttar Pradesh. (Driver of Truck No. CG-04-JD-0698). 5 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Behind LIC Office, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Truck No. C G-04-JD-0698). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.17 16:52:26 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : None. MAC No. 1207 of 2019 1 - Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Harimohan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Yatharth Senior, In Front Of HIG- 170, DD Nagar, Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Truck No. CG-04-JD-0698). ---Appellant Versus 1 - Amardas Dhritlahre S/o Sadhuram Dhritlahre Aged About 40 Years R/o Satnami Para, Gondwara, Police Station- Kabirnagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Nirmala Dhritlahre W/o Amardas Dhritlahre Aged About 39 Years R/o Satnami Para, Gondwara, Police Station- Kabirnagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mohammed Shaif S/o Jamuludiin Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Police Station Gahmar, District Gajipur Uttar Pradesh. (Driver of Truck No. CG-04-JD-0698). 4 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Behind L I C Office, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Truck No. CG-04-JD-0698). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Adv. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 15 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. Since both appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JD-0698 which was involved in the same accident dated 18.12.2017, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3 2. MAC No. 1205 of 2019 has been filed against the award dated 02.05.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 145/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of claimants/heirs of deceased Jawahar Lal Gritlahre. 3. MAC No. 1207 of 2019 has been filed against the award dated 02.05.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 352/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of claimants/heirs of deceased Gangoli Gritlahre. 4. The claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 in MAC No. 1205 of 2019 represented by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 5. In Claim Case No. 145/2018, as against the compensation of Rs.22,25,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow, son and daughter (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) of deceased – Jawahar Lal Gritlahre by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 18.12.2017, in night at about 12:10 am, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 6. In Claim Case No. 352/2018, as against the compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- claimed by the unfortunate parents (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) of 4 deceased – Gangoli by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 18.12.2017, in night at about 12:10 am, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 7. 7. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to carelessly parking the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JD-0698 in the middle of the road by its driver, Mohd. Saif; Jawaharlal Dhritlahre and Gangoli died on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident; the tribunal found that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have any valid permit of the vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company was exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation, and the driver and/or owner of the vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence the appeals. 8. In both the appeals, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant/owner liable for payment of compensation since at the time of the accident, the vehicle truck was not running on the road, and was parked for the purposes of repairing, therefore, this case is covered under the provisions of Section 66(3)(p) of M.V. Act and the permit is not required. He also submits that there were three persons were riding on the motorcycle including the driver of motorcycle, the deceased persons were under the influence of alcohol and dashed with a standing vehicle, therefore, it is a clear case of contributory negligence and thus the learned claims tribunal ought to have determined negligence on the part of the deceased persons. Hence, the 5 appeal is liable to be allowed, and the appellant/owner of the vehicle is entitled to be exonerated to pay the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant regarding breach of policy and supported the impugned award. 10.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 11.The main contention of the counsel for the appellant/owner is that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was standing for repair, therefore, this case is covered under Section 66(3)(p) of M.V. Act. 12.In the case in hand, the permit of the offending vehicle has been seized vide Exs.P-3 and P-4. Teejram Verma (NAW-2), AG-II of RTO Office, has been examined by the insurance company. Teejram Verma NAW-2 has proved the certificate of permit of offending vehicle Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, according to which the permit of vehicle truck No. CG-04- JD-0698 has been issued from 22.12.2017 to 21.12.2022 (Ex.D-1) and 13.12.2012 to 12.12.2017 (Ex.D-1), whereas the date of the accident was 18.12.2017, and there is no evidence adduced in the case to prove that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle had a valid permit. 13.Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that the permit is not required to transport a vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repair, but in the case in hand, the offending vehicle was static, not moving. Though the owner, Sunil Kumar Singh (NAW- 3) of the offending vehicle, stated that due to a breakdown of the vehicle, the vehicle was standing at the spot. This witness examined Golu @ Duleshwar (NAW-1) in support of 6 his statement, but looking to the statement of Golu @ Duleshwar there is a contradiction in his statement that he has repaired the vehicle on 19.12.2017 whereas receipt of payment Ex.D-1 is of 18.12.2017 and as per Ex.D-4 the offending vehicle was seized by police on 18.12.2017, thus, repairing of vehicle on 19.12.2017 could not be possible, therefore, this witness cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, in this case, valid permit was also required for the offending vehicle because it was not parked in a garage, but was parked on the road, and the exemption under Section 66(3)(p) is not applied in this case because it was not being taken for repairs but was parked on the road. 14.Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable with regard to not requiring a valid permit. 15.The next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the riders of motorcycle; in this regard, considering the statement of eyewitness, Amrita Bai Dhritlahre (AW-1) who has stated that on the middle of the road one truck was standing without any indication, due to which their motorcycle was collided with the truck, on account of which her husband Jawahar Lal Dhritlahre and Gangoli Dhritlahre died on the spot. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that there were three riders on the motorcycle, but there is not evidence to show the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victims to contribute in the said accident, therefore, applying the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 57, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Furthermore, considering the Merg intimation Ex.P-6 and final report 7 Ex.P-1, it is clear that Section 283 of IPC is made against the driver of the offending vehicle would show that driver of offending vehicle had not put any indicator while parked the vehicle on road and there is no evidence to show that the deceased persons were under the influence of alcohol even driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined. Thus, the contention of the appellant in this regard is also not found acceptable. 16.Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle has not valid permit, therefore, the appellant is liable for payment of compensation. 17.Accordingly, the appeals of the appellant/owner are liable to be dismissed. Cross-objection/Appeal filed in MAC No.1205 of 2019 18.As regards the cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased Jawahar Lal Dhritlahre at Rs. 6000/- per month, the tribunal should have considered that the wife of the deceased Smt. Amrit Bai (AW-1) has categorically stated that her husband was a mason and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, which has not been rebutted by the respondents. He further submits that the learned tribunal as also erred by enhancing only 25% on the head of future prospects of the decease. The tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was a mason, hence at least 40% should be enhanced towards future prospects. He also submits that on the other heads only Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded which also needs to be enhanced suitably. He also orally prayed for applying the principle of pay and recover. 8 19.In this case, the income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000 per year and after adding 25% towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased assessed to Rs.90,000/- (72,000+18,000) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the annual dependency calculated to Rs.60,000 (90,000-30,000), and after applying multiplier of 13 total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 7,80,000/- (60,000x13) and only Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded on other heads which needs to be enhanced suitably. 20.As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-. per month from the work of mason, but no valid documentary evidence in support of income has been produced thereof. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 8450/- per month as minimum wages of unskilled worker, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 18.12.2017. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,01,400/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 25,350/-, as has rightly been held by the claims tribunal the annual income comes to Rs. 1,26,750/-. 21.In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 48 years and was married and the claimants are the wife, son and daughter (total 3 persons) of the deceased so deduction 9 towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd, as has rightly been held by the tribunal i.e. Rs. 42,250/-, after deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 84,500/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, as has rightly been held by the tribunal the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,98,500/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,48,500/-. in the following manner:- S. No. Heads Compensation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 10,98,500/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards love and affection to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,48,500/- 22. So far as the oral prayer of the counsel for claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 to apply the principle of pay and recover order is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2018(3) KHC 197 considered the issue with respect to violation of conditions of Insurance Policy on the ground that offending vehicle was not having a valid 10 permit and held that Insurance Company first to satisfy the award and thereafter to recover the same from the insured. In the case in hand also there is a violation of conditions of insurance policy as the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit on the date of accident. 23. In the result, MAC No. 1205/2019 and 1207/2019, the appeals of the appellant (owner of offending vehicle) are hereby dismissed affirming the liability part of the impugned award. 24. The cross-objection/appeal filed by the claimants in MAC No. 1205/2019 stands allowed. The total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,48,500/-. After deducting Rs.8,50,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,98,500/-. 25. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein in MAC No. 1205/2019 shall be entitled to Rs. 3,98,500/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. In the light of the above judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, I direct the insurance company/respondent to first pay the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 26. Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu