1 / 12 2025:CGHC:35205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 85 of 2021 1. Mohokumari W/o Late Narad Ram Aged About 38 Years 2. Ku. Yas Lata D/o Late Narad Ram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Mohokumari (Appellant No. 1) 3. Ku. Yogendri D/o Late Narad Ram Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Mohokumari (Appellant No. 1 4. Ku. Bamleshwari D/o Late Narad Ram Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Mohokumari (Appellant No. 1) All are Permanent R/o Village Kendupati, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Mohokumari W/o Late Narad C/o Tekram Nagesh, S/o Bhagat Ram Nagesh, Paras Nagar Railway Crossing, Chhoti Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Jitender Singh S/o Jagannath Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Menhdar, Post Chainpur, Police Station Shikhawan Siwan, Bihar, At Present R/o Saraipali, Kutela Chowk Jugnipali, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle No. OD-19C-5704) 2. Anil Agrawal S/o Madan Lal Agrawal R/o Saraipali Vijay Traders, Post, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle No. OD-19C-5704 3. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhartiya G. B. Nigam, Oriental Insurance, Proprietor Hariom Medical Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle No. OD-19C-5704) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 12 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 22/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 04.03.2020 passed by Learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 116/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 10,82,500/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 22.10.2016 at about 02:30 pm in the afternoon, a truck bearing number OD 19C 5704 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) driven by its driver non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently hit Narad Ram near Chichiya, NH- 130, when he was returning to his home after selling firewood, and caused accident. He was taken to Devbhog Hospital, where during course of treatment he died. Accident was reported to police station Devbhog, on which Crime No. 241/2016 was registered for alleged offences under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by applicants- claimants- widow, children of deceased- Narad Ram, seeking compensation of ₹ 59,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 38 years. He was working as labourer and also doing agricultural work and earning ₹ 1,50,000 per annum. 4. Non-applicant No. 1-driver of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and no reply has been filed on his behalf. He was proceeded ex parte. 3 / 12 5. Non-applicants No. 2 -owner of the offending truck filed reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending truck was insured by non-applicant No. 3, thus, liability, if any, to pay compensation it would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 6. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending truck was plied in breach of policy conditions, driver of offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, thus, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if any. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Narad Ram died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 10,82,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization, exonerated the insurance company and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2 therein, jointly and severally. 8. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. He submits that though the Claims Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending, however, has not directed the insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal and thereafter to recover the same from owner 4 / 12 and driver of the offending truck. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650 and National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. 9. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants further submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased as ₹ 6,000 per month only, overlooking the pleadings made and evidence of claimants. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 4 who are children of deceased. Lastly he submitted that as the exoneration of insurance company from its liability to satisfy the award is on the ground that driver of offending truck did not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, therefore, direction be issued to insurance company to first satisfy the entire amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner and driver of offending vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, owner of offending vehicle, submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. He further submits that he has also filed cross- objection challenging the impugned award on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration unproved documents ie., Ext. D-2, D-3 and D-4. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering evidence of Surojeet Paul, Investigator on behalf of Respondent No. 6-Insurance Company, who has obtained copy of licence from the licencing authority, Howrah, has not been examined as witness before the Claims Tribunal and further has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5 / 12 11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation computed is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. She further submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability as on the date of accident driver of offending truck was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending truck. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 13. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Claims Tribunal erred in not assessing income as pleaded in the claim application of ₹ 1,50,000, except the pleadings made in the claim application that deceased on the date of accident was doing the agricultural work and other business of selling firewood and self-serving statement no other witness(es) is examined to prove the said pleading. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal justified in taking re-course to assess income on notional basis, however, failed to take note of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority for the said period of un-skilled labourer. The notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 would show the wages fixed by the competent authority was ₹ 6,206 per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as ₹ 6,206 per month instead of ₹ 6,000 as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 15. There shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects, application of deduction of 1/4 and multiplier of 15, as applied by the Claims Tribunal. 6 / 12 16. Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 40,000 towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1, widow of deceased, only. The award of compensation of loss of consortium to children and parents of deceased was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that the children and parents will also be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium of ₹ 40,000 each and therefore claimants No. 2 to 4 who are children are also entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000 each under the head of loss of parental consortium. Claims Tribunal has further awarded compensation under the head of loss of estate as ₹ 15,000 and funeral expenses as ₹ 15,000, which are also correct in the facts of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% after every three years. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 74,472/- (₹ 6206x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 74,472 + 25% of ₹ 74,472 = ₹ 93,090) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living ₹ 10,47,255/- 7 / 12 expenses (₹ 93,090 x 1/4= ₹ 23,273); ₹ 93,090 - ₹ 23,273 = ₹ 69,817/- • Multiplier of 15 ₹ 69,817 x 15 = ₹ 10,47,255/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 44,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 4 (₹ 44,000 X 3) ₹ 1,32,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- Total ₹ 12,56,255/- 18. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 12,56,255/- instead of ₹ 10,82,500/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 1. So far as the second submission with regard to issuance of direction of pay and recover is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swarn Singh (supra) and Shamanna (supra) has considered issuance of direction of pay and recover in the cases where the driver was not having valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle which he was driving or it is found fake and observed thus: • in Swarn Singh’s case (supra): “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the 8 / 12 Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) x x x x (v) x x x x (vi) x x x x (vii) x x x x (viii) x x x x (ix) x x x x (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub- section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as 9 / 12 required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” • in Shamanna’s case (supra): “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set 10 / 12 aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored.” 19. Considering the facts of the case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to direct the insurance company to first pay entire amount of compensation as awarded and thereafter to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending truck in accordance with law. For recovery of amount of compensation so deposited by the Insurance Company, it will not be required to file separate proceeding but can recover in the same proceeding as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 20. So far as the cross-objection filed by Respondent No. 2 is concerned, perusal of cross-objection filed on behalf of owner under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC would show that the counsel for Respondent No. 2-owner of offending truck has raised ground that the Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration unproved documents ie., Ext. D-2, D-3 and D-4. It is further pleaded that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering that Surojeet Paul, Investigator on behalf of Respondent No. 6-Insurance Company, who had obtained copy of licence from the licencing authority, Howrah, has not been examined as witness before the Claims Tribunal and further has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 21. To appreciate the ground raised in the cross-objection, I have perused the record of claim case. Though in the record of the Claim Case No. 116/17, photocopy of extract of driving licence has been filed, however, in another case arising out of the same accident, in claim case No. 115/17, original driving licence has been issued from the licencing authority, Howrah, is filed as Ext. D-3. Both the appeals are listed together for analogous hearing before this Court and perusal of Ext. D-3 filed in claim case No. 115/17, it 11 / 12 would reveal that it was the original extract of driving licence under the signature of licencing authority in which there is mention of the period when the licence was not valid. For Non-Transport Commercial Vehicle, it was not valid from 03.09.2007 to 19.03.2009; for Transport Commercial Vehicle, it was not valid from 03.09.2007 to 19.03.2009 and further the licence for the Transport Commercial Vehicle was not valid from 20.03.2012 to 05.12.2016. Accident occurred on 22.10.2016 which was under the period during which the licence of Jitendra Kumar Singh-driver of offending vehicle -was not valid. 22. Owner of the offending truck though in cross-objection has taken plea that extract of licence was not proved, however, owner has not produced copy of licence before the Claims Tribunal or the detailed/ particulars of the licence in the name of Jitendra Kumar Singh. It is primarily liability upon the driver of offending vehicle to produce the relevant documents as mentioned under the provisions under Section 134(c) of the Act of 1988 to produce and give information in writing to the insurer of the name of driver and particulars of his driving licence. And, under explanation it is clarified that for the purpose of this section under Section 132(c), expression driver includes the owner of the vehicle. 23. From the aforementioned provisions, it is crystal clear that it is the duty upon owner of offending vehicle to give the information with regard to name of driver and particulars of licence to the insurer in which Respondent No. 2, owner, utterly failed and therefore he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and will not be permitted to raise the ground that the extract of driving licence which is available on record as Ext. D-3 is not proved in absence of examination of investigator. 24. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to allow the cross-objection filed by the Respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle. It is sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 12 / 12 25. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellants-claimants is allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein-above and the cross-objection filed by Respondent No. 2-owner is dismissed being sans merit. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn