1 2025:CGHC:54226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1373 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Number - 1, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Gj 3 Y-7660), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Keshar Bai Wd/o Mehataru Alias Narendra Sahu Aged About 34 Years Permanent Address Village - Lohar Singh Thana - Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Raipura, Thana Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sarojni D/o Mehataru Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Guardian Mother, Permanent Address Village - Lohar Singh Thana - Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Raipura, Thana Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arun S/o Mehataru Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Guardian Mother, Permanent Address Village - Lohar Singh Thana - Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Raipura, Thana Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Omprakash S/o Churaman Lal Sinha R/o Silghat, Post Office - Gadadih, Thana - Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Gj 3 Y - 7660) (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Awadh Infraktector Pvt. Ltd. Address Gurukripa Road, Arkod Road, New Bus Stand, Infront Of Jasdan, Post Office Jasdan, District Rajkot (Gujrat) (Owner Of Vehicle No. Gj 3 Y - 7660) (Owner), District : Rajkot, Gujarat --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate MAC No. 1422 of 2018 1 - Keshar Bai Wd/o Mehataru @ Narendra Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Loharsing, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address, Raipura, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sarojani D/o Mehataru Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Keshar Bai, R/o Village Loharsing, Police Station Patan, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address, Raipura, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arun S/o Mehataru Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Keshar Bai, R/o Village Loharsing, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address, Raipura, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Omprakash S/o Churaman Lal Sinha, R/o Silght , Post Office Gadadih, Police Station- Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 1/driver Of Vehicle No. G J 3-Y-7660), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Avadh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. , S/o Gurukripa Road, Arkod Road, New Bus Stand , In Front Of Jasdan, Post Office Jasdan, District Rajkot ( Gujarat ) ( Non Applicant No. 2/owner Of Vehicle No. G J 3-Y-7660), District : Rajkot, Gujarat 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Division No. 1, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 3/insurer Of Vehicle No. G J 3-Y-7660), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. The present appeals are being decided by this common order, as both arise out of the same award dated 21.03.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 119/2006. M.A.C. No. 1422 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 1373 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability imposed upon it by the Tribunal. 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 06.09.2005, at about 08:00 A.M., respondent No.4 (in MAC No.1373/2018), while driving a commercial vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-03-Y-7660 (Mahindra DI), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Mehataru Sahu, who at that time was proceeding on a bicycle. Due to the said impact, Mehataru Sahu sustained grievous injuries, and despite medical attention, succumbed to the same. The accident thus resulted in the untimely death of Mehataru Sahu. In respect of the aforesaid accident, a claim petition was filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, wherein an award dated 25.07.2007 was passed. Aggrieved by the said award, an appeal being MAC No.1320 of 2007 was preferred before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 04.12.2010, whereby the earlier award was set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Pursuant to the remand, the learned Tribunal reheard the matter and passed a fresh award dated 21.03.2018, wherein it recorded various findings on the aspect of negligence, validity of the driving licence, and liability of the Insurance Company. The failure of learned Tribunal to issue direction forms a substantial ground of challenge in MAC No.1373/2018 filed by the Insurance Company. Simultaneously, in MAC No. 1422/2018, preferred by the claimants, the grievance is that the learned Tribunal erred in under-assessing the quantum of compensation, and that the award amount deserves to be 4 enhanced. The claimants have thus sought modification and enhancement of the award on those grounds. MAC No. 1373 of 2018 3. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company would submit that the offending vehicle, a Mahindra DI bearing registration No. GJ-03-Y-7660, was being driven at the time of the accident without a valid and effective driving licence authorising the driver, respondent No.4, to operate a commercial vehicle. Consequently, the appellant–Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the awarded compensation. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on the testimony of the RTO witness, who categorically stated that the driving licence (Exhibit D-1) issued to respondent No.4, Omprakash was valid for a period of twenty (20) years. The said witness further clarified that, in terms of Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the validity period of a driving licence for a commercial vehicle is restricted to three (3) years only. Therefore, a licence issued for twenty years cannot, by any stretch, be treated as a valid authorisation to drive a commercial transport vehicle. The said licence document was duly produced before the learned Tribunal and marked as Exhibit D-1. The RTO witness further deposed in his statement that the offending vehicle (Mahindra DI) is a four- wheeler vehicle, which falls under the category of “Light Motor Vehicle” (LMV). However, the said vehicle was admittedly being used for commercial purposes, and hence, as per settled legal 5 position, a licence issued for LMV (non-transport) category cannot be treated as valid for driving a commercial LMV vehicle. It is settled law that where the driver is found to be in possession of a licence not valid for the class of vehicle involved in the accident, the Insurance Company may, at best, be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the principle commonly referred to as “pay and recover”. It is submitted that in the present case also, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the said principle instead of fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding the owner, driver, and Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for the entire awarded amount. It is submitted that such a finding runs contrary to the settled position of law, wherein the insurer is entitled to be exonerated or, alternatively, granted the right to recover the amount from the owner and driver in cases involving breach of policy conditions. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Interest is ordinarily to be made payable from the date of award and not from the date of filing of the petition, unless specific reasons are recorded to the contrary. The same requires due consideration by this Court. The appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation under various heads, without proper assessment of income, 6 dependency, or conventional damages. The computation, therefore, warrants reconsideration and appropriate deduction, keeping in view the settled principles for determining just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also pertinent to submit that the appellant–Insurance Company had duly complied with the orders of the learned Tribunal and had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 31.10.2017 for the purpose of leading further evidence. The appellant has also, in compliance with interim directions, deposited part of the awarded amount before the Tribunal. The appellant, therefore, has acted bona fide and in full compliance of the judicial directions. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned award dated 21.03.2018, exonerate the appellant–Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation amount, in view of the breach of policy conditions and absence of a valid driving licence; In the alternative, to direct that the appellant–Insurance Company, after making payment of compensation to the claimants, shall have the right to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 – claimants submits that accident and negligence of the driver of vehicle No. GJ-03-Y-7660 stand conclusively proved, and the learned Tribunal has rightly held the owner, driver, and insurer jointly and severally 7 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The plea of the appellant–Insurance Company regarding an invalid driving licence is without substance. The RTO witness himself stated that the offending vehicle is a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), and the driver possessed a valid LMV licence. Hence, there was no fundamental breach of policy conditions absolving the insurer from liability. Even otherwise, the insurer cannot avoid its statutory liability towards third-party claimants, and at best, may seek right of recovery from the owner and driver. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record of the learned Tribunal, including the impugned award dated 21.03.2018, as well as the evidence adduced by both sides. 6. The facts relating to the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-03-Y-7660 (Mahindra DI), and the resultant death of Mehataru Sahu are not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant–Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award or is entitled to exoneration or right of recovery on account of the alleged invalidity of the driving licence held by the driver, respondent No.4. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions including Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663, has categorically held that a person holding a licence to 8 drive an LMV is competent to drive a transport vehicle of the same class, and such licence remains valid even if the vehicle is used for commercial purposes. It was held thus : “60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: 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 licence 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 licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3- 2001 in the form.” 9 8. Therefore in view of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant – insurance company that the driver was not duly licensed is without legal substance. Furthermore, even assuming that there existed a technical irregularity in the validity period of the licence, such defect cannot be termed as a fundamental breach of policy conditions so as to completely exonerate the insurer from liability. As per the settled position of law, any such irregularity, at best, entitles the insurer to seek recovery from the owner and driver after satisfying the award, but in no case does it relieve the insurer of its primary statutory liability towards third-party claimants under Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. In the present case, the Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a well-reasoned finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4, and that the Insurance Company failed to establish any wilful or conscious breach of the insurance policy by the insured. The finding of joint and several liability, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. As regards the contention that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition and has computed excessive compensation, no material has been brought on record by the appellant–Insurance Company to show that the assessment of income, dependency, or rate of interest is arbitrary or contrary to settled principles. The award reflects due consideration of the 10 evidence and correct application of law under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening liability jointly and severally upon the owner, driver, and Insurance Company. The defence raised by the appellant is devoid of merit, and no interference with the impugned award is warranted. 11. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in M.A.C. No. 1373 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. M.A.C. No. 1422 of 2018 12. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimants would submit that the impugned award dated 21.03.2018 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be modified and enhanced by this Court. The learned Tribunal has failed to award just, fair and reasonable compensation as mandated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in assessing the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased, late Mehataru Sahu, was working as a Rajmistri (mason) and was earning not less than Rs. 4,500/- per month at the relevant time. However, the Tribunal has erroneously taken a lower notional income, which has resulted in substantial reduction in the compensation payable to 11 the dependents. The learned Tribunal has further failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and subsequent decisions, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the actual income towards future prospects, the deceased being self-employed and below 40 years of age. Non-consideration of future prospects has caused grave prejudice and injustice to the claimants. The learned Tribunal has also applied an incorrect multiplier while calculating the loss of dependency. The appropriate multiplier, keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of accident, ought to have been adopted as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Due to application of a lower multiplier, the compensation amount has been unjustly curtailed. The learned Tribunal has failed to award proper amounts under conventional heads. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the award under these heads is grossly inadequate and contrary to prevailing judicial standards. For loss of estate, only Rs.15,000/- has been awarded, for loss of consortium, only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to appellant No.1 (widow), while as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Rs.1,00,000/- should have been awarded. For loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has failed to award appropriate sums, for funeral and last rites, a mere Rs.15,000/- 12 has been awarded. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may alter/modify the impugned award dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure A/1) by way of enhancement of compensation in favour of the appellants–claimants. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Insurance company opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants – claimants. 14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants– claimants as well as learned counsel representing the respondent–Insurance Company and have carefully perused the record of the learned Tribunal. 15. The principal grievance of the appellants–claimants is that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation, having not properly assessed the income of the deceased and having omitted to grant future prospects as well as adequate amounts under the conventional heads. The contention of the appellants has substance. The learned Tribunal has not taken into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein it has been held that the income of the deceased must be enhanced towards future prospects. 16. Having determined the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 3,000 x 12). The deceased was self-employed, therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay 13 Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% towards future prospects is justified and required to be made to his established income. Accordingly, the annual income after adding 40% towards future prospects would come to Rs. 50,400/- (Rs. 36,000 + Rs. 14,400). The deceased was aged around 35 years at the time of the accident, hence, multiplier of 16 is correctly determined by the learned Tribunal. Further, considering that there were four dependents on the deceased, a deduction of 1/3rd is to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,37,600/-. 17. As regards compensation under the conventional heads, this Court finds that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and not in consonance with the prevailing standards laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the same deserve suitable enhancement. The claimants shall be entitled for grant of Rs.1,44,000 /- (40,000/- x 3 + 10% + 10%)(with increase of 10% in every three years) each to the three claimants as compensation towards loss of consortium. 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. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,17,600 /- in the following manner:- 14 S.No. Heads Calculation 01. Towards loss of Income Rs. 5,37,600/- 02. Towards consortium Rs. 1,44,000/- 04. Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 05. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 7,17,600/- 18. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,17,600/- from Rs. 5,50,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs. 1,67,600/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 19. As a result, the MAC No. 1422 of 2018 is allowed in part. The award dated 21.03.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE