1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1501 of 2016 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Geetanjali Building Main Road Old Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................(Insurance Company Of Above Vehicle) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rurhi Bai W/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Budhram Singh S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 22 Years 3 - Naval Singh S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 17 Years 4 - Ku. Samli D/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 15 Years 5 - Prakash Kumar S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 13 Years Respondents No. 3 to 5 are Minors Through Guardian Mother Smt. Rurhi Bai W/o Late Ratnu Singh, All Residents of Village- Chendradadar, Tahan Taregaon Jangal, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ..................Claimants, 6 - Kesho Alias Keshav Singh Rajpoot S/o Chandrama Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Kharjhitikhurd, Thana Pipriya, Present Address Daldali Semsanta BALCO Mines, Thana Taregaon Jangal, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ...............Vehicle Driver of Vehicle No. C.G.12 C 0113, 7 - Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Balco Korba Project Through Manager, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, Balco Nagar Korba, Thana Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Vehicle Owner Of Vehicle No.C.G.12-C-0113, --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1396 of 2016 1 - Smt. Rurhi Bai W/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Budhram Singh S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 22 Years 3 - Naval Singh S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 17 Years 4 - Ku. Samli D/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 15 Years 5 - Prakash Kumar S/o Late Ratnu Singh, Aged About 13 Years Appellants No. 3 to 5 are Minors Through Guardian Mother Smt. Rurhi Bai W/o Late Ratnu Singh, Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.05.05 17:36:08 +0530 2 All Residents of Village- Chendradadar, Police Station Taregaon Jangal, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, ….. Appellants Versus 1 - Kesho @ Keshav Singh Rajput S/o Chandrma Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khairjhiti Khurd, Police Station Pipariya, Presently R/o Daldali, Semsanta Balco Mines, Police Station Taregaon, Jangal, Tahsil Borla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh .................Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No.C.G.12- C-0113, 2 - Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) Korba Project Through Manager, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, Balco Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No.C.G.12- C-0113, 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office Geetanjali Building, Main Road Old Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No.C.G.12- C-0113, --- Respondent(s) MAC No.1501/2016 For Appellant/insurer : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants : Shri S.B.Pandey, Advocate For Respondents 6 & 7 : None, though served. MAC No.1396/2016 For Appellants/Claimants: Shri S.B.Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondent 3 : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 01/05/2025 1. Since both the above captioned appeals arise out of the same impugned award dated 29th June, 2016 passed in M.A.C.C.No.121/2015, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 27.07.2015 at 5:00 pm, when the deceased Ratnu Singh, after completing his work from Semsata Bauxite Mine, was returning to his village Chendaradadar on his bicycle and as soon as he reached to the village Darai Road manganese Balco slope, at the same time, water tanker bearing registration No.C.G.12-C-0113 (for 3 short, ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by Non-applicant No.1 Kesho @ Keshav in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased cyclist from the opposite side and caused accident, as a result of which, the deceased received injuries on various parts of his body. Thereafter, he was admitted into Primary Health Center, Taregaon from where he was referred to District Hospital, Kabirdham and during treatment, he has died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Balco) and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. On account of death of deceased Ratnu Singh, legal representatives of the deceased, being claimants, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,50,000/-, inter alia, pleading that at the time of accident, the deceased – Ratnu Singh was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing labour works and Rs.15,000/- per month from agricultural works. 4. The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants (driver, owner and insurer) on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,22,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum or prevailing rate of interest fixed in a nationalized Bank, whichever is less, from the date of award till its realisation while directing the Non- applicants/respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence, these appeals by the insurance company for its exoneration and by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that at the time of accident the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Balco did not produce any permit whereas the offending vehicle was 4 registered in the name of Balco as owner of it and the Balco is not the Government undertaking company, therefore, it is not exempted as per requirement of Section 66 (3) (a) of the MV Act. He further submits that in the written statement filed jointly by Non-applicants No.1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner, it is nowhere mentioned that Balco was Government undertaking company or Government owned enterprise. He further submits that as per the evidence of N.A.W.1 Kesho @ Keshav Singh (driver) and that of N.A.W.2 Vijay Kumar, examined on behalf of insurer, that at the time of accident, no permit was produced by its owner and if their evidence is taken as it is, then the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in recording a finding that the Balco was a Government owned enterprise and thus no permit is required for a vehicle owned by Government undertaking company, which is erroneous in the eye of law, hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. He lastly contends that the there is no scope of enhancement as the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly satisfied the claimants. 7. Shri S.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the claimants (Smt. Rurhi Bai and 4 others), while not disputing that the deceased was engaged in doing labour works, submits that the learned claims Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which is on lower side whereas, as per prevailing minimum wages, it should be assessed at Rs.5,787/-. He next contends that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head ‘loss of future prospects’. He further submits that on other conventional heads, total award of Rs.1,25,000/- by the Tribunal is on very lower side as the claimant No.1 is the wife and claimants No.2 to 5 are children, all these 5 appellants/claimants are entitled to be awarded for loss of spousal and parental and in addition to amounts under other conventional heads, they are also entitled to be awarded funeral expenses and loss of estate. He 5 placed his reliance on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 in support of his arguments. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties. 9. It is not disputed that the deceased met with vehicular accident and that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non- applicant No.3/insurance company. Moreover, the issues No.1 & 2 to the effect that on 27.07.2015, the deceased was knocked down to death by Non-applicant No.1 by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, were decided by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, I shall deal with the appeal, i.e., MAC No.1396/2016 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. So far as assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal is concerned, the claimants pleaded in their claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing labour works, which was not accepted by the Tribunal as there was no cogent and clinching evidence thereof, therefore, in absence of such evidence, the Tribunal determined the income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-, on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is on lower side. Even if Minimum Wages provisions for unskilled persons during the period between 01.04.2015 to 30.09.2015 are considered, then it can safely be inferred that the deceased’s monthly income would certainly be Rs.5,787/- and considering the facts of the case, nature of job and looking to minimum wages at the prevalent time, it is held that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,787/- per 6 month by working from labour works. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal fallen in error in not awarding future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on meager side. Barring these features, as per the Claims Tribunal, the deceased was 54 years and that, the age of the deceased is not disputed by the claimants. This apart, the multiplier of 11 and the 1/4th deduction as made by the Tribunal are just and proper. 12. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court re-computes the compensation in the following manner :- Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,787/- per month. 69,444/- 2. 10% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 6,944/- 3. Total annual income of the deceased 76,388/- 4. Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency. 8,40,268/- 5. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.8,40,268 – 2,10,067/- 6,30,201/- 6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 7. Loss of estate 15,000/- 8. Loss of spousal and parental consortium to the appellants/claimants No.1 to 5 (Rs.40,000/- each). 2,00,000/- Total compensation 8,60,201/- Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) 4,22,000/- Enhanced amount by this Court 4,38,201/- 13. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,38,201/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum as awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. 14. So far as the question of fastening liability is concerned, I shall now deal with the appeal, i.e., MAC No.1501/2016 filed by the appellant/insurance company. Although it is not disputed that the offending vehicle was owned by 7 the Balco, but the main contention of the insurance company is that the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Balco is not a Government owned enterprise and at the time of accident, it was not having valid permit to ply the same on public place. In this regard, statements of N.A.W.1 Kesho @ Keshav Singh (driver) and that of N.A.W.2 Vijay Kumar, examined on behalf of insurer, are very significant. N.A.W.1 Kesho @ Keshav Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, in his cross-examination, admitted that the offending vehicle falls in the category of heavy vehicle and for this purpose, permit is required and he did not produce the permit despite notice was issued by the insurance company demanding to produce the permit, however, neither he nor its owner, i.e., Balco, did not show the permit to the insurance company. N.A.W.2, employee of Non-applicant No.3/insurer and witness examined by the insurer on its behalf, has stated that on the date of accident, i.e., 27.07.2015, the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and no copy of permit was produced by Non-applicants No.1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner and that, despite there being demand made by it to produce the copy of permit, it was not made available to the insurer and the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of permit, which is totally in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment. 15. As per their evidence, it is clear that the offending vehicle is a heavy vehicle and permit is required to ply the same on public place and that the same is being plied in absence of valid permit, and therefore, it is a fundamental breach of policy conditions. Moreover, perusal of copies of insurance policy and the R.C.book, available on record, would clearly show that the registered owner of the offending vehicle is Balco and that offending vehicle is a water tanker. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement jointly filed by the Non-applicants No.1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner, that the offending vehicle owned by the Balco is a Government vehicle and the Balco 8 is a Government owned enterprise or undertaken by the Government and that, it is also not mentioned therein that permit is not required under any law. 16. Barring the above discussion, provisions of Section 66 (1) of the MV Act clearly stated that valid permit is required for plying the transport vehicle on public place whereas Section 66 (3) (a) stated that if the transport vehicle is owned by Central Government or State Government, then permit is not required. 17. If the evidence of N.A.W.1 and N.A.W.2 is read together along with copies of insurance policy and R.C. book available on record and the provisions of Section 66 (1) and Section 66 (3) (a) of the M.V.Act, then it is clear that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective permit and accordingly it is held that on the date of accident, Balco is not exempted from producing permit under Section 66(3)(a) of the MV Act and that no valid and effective permit was produced by either driver or owner and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions and it is already settled by this Court that driving of a vehicle without valid permit and fitness certificate would be considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy in MAC No.924 of 2019 (Shravan Kumar Kaushik and another vs. Smt. Nutam Pandey and others) decided on 01.05.2023 wherein para 12 are relevant, which reads as under: 12. A bare perusal of the above evidence would clearly reveal that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit and fitness certificate. It is settled law that driving of a vehicle without valid permit and fitness certificate would be considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Others vs. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Tribunal held the Insurance Company not liable for payment of compensation. I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was rightly justified in fastening liability upon the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2, i.e., owner and driver. In view thereof, I do not see any infirmity in such finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 9 18. In view of above, it is further held that the appellant/insurance company is exonerated from its liability and since the Non-applicant No.2 – Balco, owner of the offending vehicle has failed to discharge its duty by producing valid permit at the time of accident, therefore, the Non-applicant No.2/Balco is held liable for payment of compensation along with interest, to the claimants. 19. As regards the payment of compensation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with appellant/Insurance Company and that the claimants are third party, I direct the appellant/ insurance company, i.e., the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay the compensation amount first to the claimants and then recover the same from the Non-applicant No. 2 – Balco, owner of the offending vehicle. 20. Consequently, both the above captioned appeals filed by the insurance company and that of the claimants are partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani