1 2025:CGHC:53712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1353 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor Shri Ganesh Mall Opposite Bus Stand Main Road Gadhwa ( Jharkhand ) Through Authorized Signatory For The New India Insurance Company Limited Bilaspur Divisional Office, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Parshu Ram Mistry S/o Mallu Vishvakarma Aged About 55 Years Occupation Lohar Mistry Village Bais Plot Vishrampur Police Station Ranka District Gadhva ( Jharkhand ) ( Claimant ), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand. 2 - Shri Mithlesh Pal S/o Arjun Pal Aged About 24 Years Occupation Driver And Vehicle Owner R/o Village Mitgai Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Shri Mohan Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav Aged About 55 Years Occupation Registered Owner Of Vehicle R/o Village Khardiha Bhuinya Tala, Rankaraj Police Station Ranka District Gadhva ( Jharkhand ) ( Owner ), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1356 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited First Floor Shri Ganesh Mall Opposite Bus Stand Main Road Gadhwa (Jharkhand) Through Authorised Signatory For The New India Insurance Company Limited Bilaspur Divisional Office, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Vimla Devi W/o Parsh Ram Aged About 50 Years Occupation House Wife R/o Village Bais Plot Vishrampur Police Station Ranka District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand........(Claimant), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand. 2 - Shri Mithlesh Pal S/o Arjun Pal Aged About 24 Years Occupation Driver And Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mitgai Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujgunj District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.......(Driver), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Mohan Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav Aged About 55 Years Occupation Registered Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Village Bhardiha Bhuinya Tola, Rankharaj, Police Station Ranka District Gadhva, Jharkhand......(Owner), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand. 3 --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1375 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor Shri Ganesh Mall Opposite Bus Stand Main Road Gadhwa ( Jharkhand ) Through Authorized Signatory For The New India Insurance Company Limited Bilaspur Divisional Office, Opposite Rajiv Palaza Near Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Dilbaso Devi Wd/o Ramdeo Vishvakarma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mitgai Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujgunj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Mithlesh Pal S/o Arjun Pal Aged About 24 Years Occupation Driver And Vehicle Owner R/o Village Mitgai Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujgunj District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Mohan Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav Aged About 55 Years Occupation Registered Owner Of Vehicle R/o Village Khardiha Bhuinya Tola , Rankaraj Police Station Ranka District Gadhva ( Jharkhand ) (Owner), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand --- Respondent(s) 4 MAC No. 1376 of 2018 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited First Floor Shri Ganesh Mall Opposite Bus Stand Main Road Gadhwa (Jharkhand) Through Authorised Signatory For The New India Insurance Company Limited Bilaspur Divisional Office, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Dilbaso Devi Wd/o Ramdeo Vishwakarma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mitgai P.S. And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Mithlesh Pal S/o Arjun Pal Aged About 24 Years Occupation Driver And Vehicle Owner R/o Village Mitgai P.S. And Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Mohan Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav Aged About 55 Years Occupation Registered Owner Of Vehicle R/o Village Khardiha Bhuinya Tola, Rankaraj P.S. Ranka District Gadhwa (Jharkhand), District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 5 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 16.4.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1353/2018, 1356/2018, 1375/2018 & 1376/2018 are insurer’s appeal against the award dated 16.4.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur at Ramanujgunj (C.G.). 2. All these appeals are arising out of one accident occurred on 29.4.2014 in which the claimants, namely, Parshu Ram Mistry, Vimla Devi and Dilbaso Bai have sustained grievous injuries and as such they have filed separate claim petitions in which the learned claims Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle Jeep bearing No. JH 08A/0060 was driven rashly and negligently due to which the offending vehicle turtled down and the claimants who are travelling on the said vehicle have sustained grievous injuries and as such the claimants, namely, Parshu Ram Mistry was awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, Vimla Devi was awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Dilbaso was awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal while stating that the offending vehicle was being plied incontravention of the insurance policy. The vehicle was registered as private taxi, however, it was carrying passengers and as such it was being used as commercial vehicle as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 6 4. Dilbaso Devi has also filed a claim petition on account of death of her husband, namely, Ramdev Vishvakarma in the said accident seeking compensation. The said motor accident claim case No. was registered bearing Claim Case No. 12/2016 in which the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-. 5. The insurance company has also challenged this appeal on the same ground stating that the vehicle is being plied incontravension of the insurance policy in a private Jeep passengers are being carried and as such the liability was fastened upon the insurance company is bad in law. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal has framed an issue as to whether the owner and driver of the vehicle have plied the vehicle while violating the conditions of the policy without having proper driving license and permit of the vehicle. 7. Vide para 19, the tribunal has categorically stated that though the insurance company has pleaded breach of policy conditions, however, it has failed to adduce any evidence before the tribunal in order to substantiate its contention regarding violation of policy conditions. The insurance company have got examined one senior Assistant Officer, namely, Prakash Beck as NAW-1, however, the witness has stated that the Jeep was insured with the insurance company but it was insured as private car. The driver of the Jeep, namely, Mithlesh Pal was having driving license of motor cycle and LMV. The claim of the insurance 7 company i.e. Jeep was being run as passenger vehicle could not be substantiated and as such the contention of the insurance company that the vehicle was being used incontravension of the of the insurance policy was not found to be proved by the tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that looking to the number of the persons it is quite vivid that the deceased as well as the other inured passengers are infact passengers and they are traveling on the said Jeep as passenger though the Jeep was not registered as passenger Car as it was registered as Private Car as such there is apparent violation of policy conditions. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2013) 13 SCC 792, in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MAC No 1428/2015 & other connected matters and in MAC No. 618/2013. 9. None for the respondents. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the record. 11. From the record, it appears that the injured persons, namely, Parshu Ram Mistry, Vimla Devi and Dilbaso Bai were examined in their respective claim case, however, there is no evidence to 8 show that the vehicle was being run as commercial vehicle. The officer who has been examined on behalf of insurance company as NAW-3 could not able to prove this fact that the vehicle was run as Taxi. On the contrary in his cross examination he has categorically stated that the commander Jeep was having capacity of 10 persons and it was insured by the insurance company at the time of accident of the vehicle. He has further stated that the vehicle was light motor vehicle and as such the driver who has having LMV license was authorized to drive the said vehicle. Since the vehicle was registered as Private Car as such permit was not necessary for plying the said Jeep. The owner of the Jeep namely, Mohan Yadav has examined witness of NAW-1 & 2 he has categorically denied that the vehicle was being run as Taxi and has categorically stated that the child of the driver was ill as such he has give his vehicle to him for his treatment. 12. Considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses including the witness from insurance company as well as owner the claims Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle was not being plied in contravension of the policy conditions. The driver of the vehicle was having proper driving license. Since the vehicle was registered as private car as such no permit is required as such the tribunal has not committed any error of law in fastening the liability upon the insurance company. 9 13. From the evidence as well as the injuries sustained by the injured persons, it appears that the tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of compensation towards each of the claimants. 14. The law is well settled. The burden to prove violation of policy conditions is upon the insurance company. In Narcinva V. Kamat and another V. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others 1985 2 SCC 574, the Supreme Court held thus: “14. The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract of insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in Cross-examination. The second appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the insurance company to wriggle out its liability under the contract of insurance. Further the R.T.A. which issues the driving licence keeps a record of the licences issued and renewed by it. The insurance company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its allegation. Applying the test who would fail if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the insurance company." 15. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 10 held as under:- “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 16. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. In light of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court of the opinion that in order to do complete justice the awarded amount in each of the claim case is required to be enhanced. 18. Accordingly, in the matter of Parshu Ram Mistry (MAC No. 1353/2018), this Court deems fit to grant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of amenities. 11 19. The Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount towards death of Ramdev Vishvakarma in the said accident. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 12,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 24,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 65 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 1,20,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- in favour of the wife of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 20. The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 21. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 65 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 12,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual 12 dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. 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 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 7, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 1,68,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X1+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 48,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 1,68,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X1+10% +10%). Rs. 48,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 13 Total Rs. 2,52,000/- 22. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 2,52,000/-. After deducting Rs. 1,70,000/- as awarded by the tribunal in MAC No. 1376/2018, the enhancement would be Rs. 82,000/-. 23. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 24. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount of compensation including enhanced compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 25. It is also directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat