-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1047 of 2019 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited C/o Branch Office Raigarh Near S.B.I.Main Branch Kewdabadi, Tahsil And Dstrict Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager, Suit Legal Hub At The Office Of Suit Legal Hub Opposite Rajiv Plaza Second, Floor, Rama Trade Center, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Jailal Chouhan S/o Benuram Chouhan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Telikot Police Station And Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mst. Mina Bai Chouhan W/o Jai Lal Chouhan Aged About 44 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Telikot Police Station And Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amar Kumar Chouhan Alias Amarnath Aged About 19 Years Occupation Student Class Xi ,r/o Village Telikot Police Station And Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dev Kumar S/o Shobharam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madanpur, Police Station And Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kapil Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle, R/o Behind Ganj Kharsiya Police Station And Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.....(Owner ), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajkumar Pali,Advocate For respondents No.4 & 5 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.11.2025 -2- 1) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability part against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No.50/2017 dated 09.10.2018, whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.12,39,600/- with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of the claimants on account of death of Sanju @ Sanjay Chouhan. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that in intervening night of 28th of February, 2017 & 1st of March, 2017, when the deceased Sanju @ Sanjay Chouhan along with his employer Vikas Agrawal and his wife Sonia Agrawal were returning to Village Chapora, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.C.G.04/JB/3055, by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the car, consequently, Sanju @ Sanjay Chouhan sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Mr. Nande would submit that the Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of Insurance Policy and the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence. He would contend that the learned Tribunal framed issues and passed an award. Mr. Nande would submit that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has been moved in the instant appeal to demonstrate that on fateful day, there was no valid permit with the offending vehicle. He would submit that a certificate has been given by Mr.C.M. Nagdeo/Advocate/Investigator of the insurance company to the effect that the temporary permit in favour of trailer registration No.C.G.04/JB/3055 was valid from 02.03.2017 to 31.05.2017 and there was no valid permit on 1st of March, 2017. He would submit that as there was no valid permit with the offending vehicle, learned Tribunal committed error of -3- law while fastening liability with the insurance company. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the insurance company placing reliance on Ex. A/26 seizure memo, whereby, the registration certificate, copy of insurance policy, fitness certificate, permit of offending vehicle and driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle were seized by police during the course of investigation. He would further submit that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to submit original of these documents before the learned Tribunal, therefore, there was no occasion for insurance company to examine those documents. He would pray to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Nande. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award. It is also contended that the insurance company failed to examine any witness to establish the fact that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit with the offending vehicle. Mr. Sahu would submit that the claimants have filed cross appeal for enhancement of compensation as the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation on conventional heads. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5) With regard to enhancement of compensation, a perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the -4- claimants for loss of consortium. The claimants are parents and younger brother of the deceased. The claimants have pleaded that the younger brother was dependent on income of the deceased. 6) Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Sahu and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, it is held that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation on head of loss of consortium with an additional amount of 20% as more than six years have already elapsed. Resultantly, the claimants shall receive an additional sum of Rs.44,000/- x 3 =1,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The Insurance Company shall make payment of enhanced compensation within a period of 60 days. 7) With regard to contention made by Mr. Nande, a perusal of record would show that no specific plea was taken with regard to permit in the reply filed to claim petition. A general and omnibus averment was made that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid and mandatory documents. 8) A specific plea was taken by the insurance company with regard to driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the driver had valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and contention made by Insurance company was rejected. 9) It is also apparent from the record that the insurance company failed to examine any witness to establish the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven in absence of valid permit. 10) For the first time, the appellant/insurance company has raised issue of permit in this appeal. A certificate issued by advocate/investigator has been placed -5- on record along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. According to the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the additional evidence can be permitted if it was refused by the Court below against whose order or decree, appeal has been preferred or after due diligence the appellant could not obtain such documents. 11) Present is not a case where any attempt was made by Insurance Company to produce that document. The document was within the knowledge of the insurance company but neither pleading was made in the reply nor evidence was led in this regard, therefore, application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is rejected. 12) In the result, the cross-objection filed by the claimant is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha