1 2025:CGHC:29104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1793 of 2018 1 - Smt. Pet Dewangan Wd/o Late Ramlal Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Mahamayi Ward Arjunda, Police Station - Arjunda, Tahsil -Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sita Dewangan D/o Late Ramlal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Mahamayi Ward Arjunda, Police Station - Arjunda, Tahsil -Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Smita Dewangan D/o Late Ramlal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years (Address wrongly mentioned in the award) R/o Ward No. 13 Mahamayi Ward Arjunda, Police Station -Arjunda, Tahsil -Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Mahesh Kumar Yadav S/o Kanhaiyalal Yadav aged about 19 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Dondilohara Tahsil -Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattiisgarh (Driver) 2 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Chandra Kumar Sahu R/o Sanjay Nagar Dondilohara ,tahsil -Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. Presently residing At Near Gajanand Mandir ,vishwakarma Chowk ,durg Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner) 4 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, R/o G.E. Road, Parmanand Bhawan, near Rajendra Park, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Respondents MAC No. 1582 of 2018 1 - Mahesh Kumar Yadav S/o Kanahiya Lal Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Dondilohara, Tehsil - Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ( Non - Applicant No. 1 / Driver ) 2 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Chandra Kumar Sahu, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Dondilohara, Tehsil - Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Near Gajanand Temple, Vishwakarma Chowk, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:41 +0530 2 Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. --Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Pait Dewangan W/o Late Ramlal Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ajunda, Tehsil Gunderdehi And District Balod Chhatisgarh. 2 - Ku. Sita Dewangan D/o Late Raamlal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ajunda, Tehsil Gunderdehi And District Balod Chhatisgarh. 3 - Ku. Smita Dewangan D/o Late Raamlal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ajunda, Tehsil Gunderdehi And District Balod Chhatisgarh. 4 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through General Manager, Address G E Road, Parmanand Bhawan Near , Rajendra Park, Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Claimants : Mr. P.R. Patankar with Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates For Driver and Owner : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 30.06.2025 1. As the above two appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the award dated 08.08.2018 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No.354/2016 whereby learned Claims 3 Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.4,27,884/- as total compensation and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicants No.1 and 2 therein i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 3. MAC No.1793/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation stating that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 4. MAC No.1582/2018 has been filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle questioning the liability fastened upon them while exonerating the Insurance Company holding that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such the liability to satisfy the compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 5. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 4.09.2016, at about 7.45 AM, Ramlal Dewangan (since deceased) was going towards Manki-Arjunda Road on his Scooty bearing registration No.CG-07/AK/4938 and he was standing near the field of Manharan Thakur on left side of the road, at that relevant time, driver of the Car bearing registration No.CG-07/BB/8251 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) while driving the same rashly and negligently, dashed Ramlal Dewangan, due to which he suffered grievous injuries over his head, legs, hands 4 and other parts of the body. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Arjunda for treatment, but looking to the injuries sustained by him, he was referred to I.M.I. Hospital, Khursipar, where during the course of treatment, he died on 10.09.2016. 6. The legal heirs of Ramlal Dewangan have filed an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) seeking total compensation of Rs.14,80,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 65 years, earning Rs.6,000/- per month while doing the work of Agriculture and Carpenter. They have further pleaded that the claimants have incurred huge amount in the treatment of Late Ramlal Dewangan. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has issued notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as insurer of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement while stating that Ramlal Dewangan was in a drunken condition and he was crossing the road suddenly, as such the accident occurred. It was further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was having learner’s licence and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability, if any to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 8. Written statement was also field by the Insurance Company while stating that the claim application filed by the claimants are not in 5 accordance with law. The claimants have claimed excessive amount of compensation without there being any proof of income, age, name as well as address of the deceased. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, as such there was violation of conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 9. On appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as pleadings of both the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,27,884/- to the claimants as compensation and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants in MAC No.1793/2018 submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and total compensation of Rs.4,27,884/- has been awarded including the amount of other conventional heads. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and 6 therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 11. Learned counsel for driver and owner in MAC No.1582/2018 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,27,884/- in favour of the claimants and fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that there is a breach of insurance policy because as per policy, if the driver is having Learner’s licence, then under such circumstances, it is mandatory for the driver to be accompanied by a person who is having valid driving licence whereas in the present case, the driver has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mahesh Kumar Yadav (driver) was accompanied by Om Prakash Sahu (NAW-2(2), which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has gave an erroneous finding that the that driver and owner have breached the policy conditions as there was no sign 'L' in the front and backside of the Car which is mandatory as per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘Rules of 1989’). It has been further contended that the witness of the Insurance Company namely Shri G. Raja Shiv Kumar, in its statement has exhibited the Learner’s licence of the Mahesh Kumar Yadav (Driver) as Ex.D/7 and admitted in his evidence that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was driven by Mahesh Kumar Yadav. The Insurance Company has also examined Pooran Lal Thakur (Assistant Grade- 3 RTO, Balod) 7 who has categorically admitted the genuinity of the Learner’s licence, therefore, it is nobody's case that Mahesh Kumar Yadav was not having valid Learner’s license on the date of accident, as such, non-examination of driver Mahesh Kumar Yadav cannot be fatal to the present case. It has been further contended that Om Prakash Sahu has exhibited D/8C as his valid driving license and proved his presence along with Mahesh Kumar Yadav (Driver) at the time of accident, which further gets corroborated by the evidence of Manoj Kumar Sahu that at the time of accident, Om Prakash sahu and Mahesh Kumar Yadav where travelling in the same vehicle. It has been argued that burden to prove the defence raised by the Insurance Company that whether there has been any breach or violation of the condition of insurance policy is upon the Insurance Company and not upon the insured because the burden is squarely on that party which complains of breach to prove that the breach has been committed by the other party to the contract. In the present case, Insurance Company has examined it's witness Shri G. Raja Shiv Kumar, who has cursorily meet allegation that there is a volition of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 because at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not accompanied by person having valid licence. It has been further argued that it is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was damaged by the villagers after accident and as such, the burden lies upon the Insurance Company to establish that 'L' sign was not present 8 prior to accident, to which they have failed. As such, the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 (para 52 and 110 (iii) and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Geeta Devi and others, 2023 INSC 954 (paras 9, 10, 11, 12(iii), (iv), (v0) and 15. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that after appreciating the evidence on record, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the just amount of compensation and righly fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, which do not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal. 14. First, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation. 15. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that 9 the deceased was 65 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, this Court reckon the same as 65 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2016, and this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as per price index prevailing at that relevant time as Rs.6,107/- per month i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of more than 60 years of age with no fixed income, 10% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospect, which comes to Rs.80,612-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.53,741/-. After applying the multiplier of 7, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.3,76,187/-. 16. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay 10 Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Appellants/Claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 17. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 10% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 7,328 = Rs.80,612/- 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 80,612 / 3 = Rs.26,871/- Rs.53,741/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 7 applied 53,741 x 7 Rs.3,76,187/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,44,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 8. Medical Expenses Rs.1,05,884/- 11 (awarded by Claims Tribunal) Total Compensation Awarded Rs.6,62,071/- 18. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.6,62,071/-. After deducting Rs.4,27,884/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,34,187/-. 19. Now, this Court shall deal with appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.1582/2018. 20. So far as fastening the liability upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 has held that the vehicle in question is being run in contravention of the insurance policy and it was found that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having Learner’s licence, however as per Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the requisite conditions were not fulfilled. The Learner’s licence holder are required to mark ‘L’ letter in the rear and front glass of the vehicle in a such a manner that it may be clearly looked by the others. 21. The other conditions for a person having Learner’s licence is concerned, he has to keep permanent licence holder along with him while driving then only Learner’s licence would be allowed to drove the vehicle. According to the conditions as enumerated in the Rules of 1989 have not been followed and as such, there is 12 breach of insurance policy and hence, the insurer cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Accordingly, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle are held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 22. At this stage, learned counsel for the driver and owner submits that there is no evidence as such, that the owner and driver have violated any of the conditions of the Rules of 1989. The driver was having Learner’s licence however, on the date of accident owner and driver of the vehicle has specifically made sign of ‘L’ in the front and rear glass of the vehicle and not only this, one Om Prakash Sahu who was having permanent driving licence has been kept as per Rules of 1989. 23. In the evidence Mahesh Kumar, has categorically stated that he was driving the offending vehicle from the left side and along with him, a permanent driving licence holder namely Om Prakash Sahu was sitting in his vehicle. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in his written statement, he has not pleaded that in his vehicle, ‘L’ letter has been inscribed in the front and rear glass of the vehicle. It has also not been stated in his written statement that Om Prakash Sahu was sitting along with him while he was driving the offending vehicle. Though in further evidence, he has stated that since the glass of the vehicle was broken by the villagers and, as such ‘L’ letter inscribed could not be seen in the offending vehicle. 13 24. Likewise, from the evidence of Om Prakash Sahu who is said to be seated in the offending vehilce along with driver having Learner’s licence has failed to show any evidence, for which it can be presumed that he was sitting at the time of accident along with driver. 25. The claimant Ku. Smita Dewangan (AW-1) has stated in her evidence that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, his father Ramlal Dewangan has expired in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 04.09.2016 while his father was driving Scooty. From her evidence nothing could illustrated in respect of the driver of vehicle having shown ‘L’ sign in the front and rear side glass. 26. The other witness namely Manoj Kumar Dewangan (AW-2) has not stated anything suggestive of the fact that driver of offending vehicle who is holding Learner’s licence was driving the vehicle by following the conditions enumerated in Rules of 1989. 27. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is extracted below for ready reference :- “3. Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than [a motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub- 14 section (2) of Section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub- section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 28. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 reads as follows : “3. General.-The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as — (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving License to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear or the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background as under : L Note.—The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters square and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom. Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b).” 15 29. Section 3 of the M.V. Act mentions that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence. Section 8 of the M.V. Act envisaged grant of Learner's Licence, which is to be granted subject to provisions of Section 7. Section 7 of the M.V. Act prescribes for licence shall not be granted to a person below the age of 18 years and Learner's Licence not to be granted to drive 'Transport Vehicle' unless applicant is holding licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' for at least one year. Learner's Licence is to be granted subject to Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989. Under Rule 3, it is specifically provided that he can drive a vehicle, but such person is to be accompanied by an Instructor holding an effective driving licence and further such Instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle and further 'L' sign/mark painted in front and rear side of the vehicle. 30. Though learned counsel for the owner and driver has submitted that every care has been taken by the driver of the vehicle who was having Learner's licence, however, accident occurred and it was not due to any lapse on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. There was breach of conditions of insurance policy, however, Claims Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and has fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He further submits that from perusal of the evidence and documents as submitted before the Claims Tribunal, it seems that there was nothing to show that learned 16 Claims Tribunal has committed any illegality while holding that owner and driver are liable to pay compensation as there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi and others passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19992 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398. 31. Considering the matter in its entirety, it is apparent that the facts and circumstances of the case law as cited by the learned counsel for the driver and owner would not be applicable and the same is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the question with respect to fake driving licence was involved and in the present case, the question with respect to the Learner’s licence is involved. 32. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in holding that driver and owner of the offending vehicle have violated the Rules of 1989 in driving the vehicle and as such, they are liable for payment of compensation. Hence the liability which has been fastened upon owner and driver is well merited and it not required to be interfered with. 33. In the result:- (i) The appeal filed by the claimants being MAC 17 No.1793/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.2,34,187/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. (ii) The appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.1582/2018 is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 34. In view of the above, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 35. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh