1 2025:CGHC:47227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1336 of 2019 1 - Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Thana - Kotwali, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). 2 - Govind Sahu S/o Lakheshwar Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Lakheshwar Sahu, R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Thana - Kotwali, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) --- Appellants versus 1 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekari, Thana And Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/s./0817). (Driver), 2 - Pankaj Jindal S/o Kishori Lal Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila, Thana Naila District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/s./0717). (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager The United India Insurance Limited, Branch Office Gurukripa Tower, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Amber Auto Mobile Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/s./0817). (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 with MAC No. 1342 of 2019 Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba, Ward No. -3, Thana-Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekari, Thana And Tahsil-Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh......... Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/S/0817) 2 - Pankaj Jindal S/o Kishori Lal Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila, Thana Naila, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ......... ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/s/0817) 3 - Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Limited, Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Amber Auto Mobile Byapar Vihar Raod Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh)....... (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12/s/0817 ) --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1164 of 2019 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Gurukripa Towers, 2nd Floor Opposite Ambar Automobile Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory Divisional Office, United India 3 Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Shyam Kunvar Sahu W/o Lakheshwar Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3 Police Station Kotwali Korba Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3 P.S. Kotwali Korba Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Govind Sahu S/o Lakheshwar Sahu Aged About 15 Years R/o Village Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3 P.S. Kotwali Korba Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekri Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Hyva Truck Bearing No. Cg 12/ S 0817) 5 - Pankaj Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila Police Station Naila District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Hyva Truck Bearingh No. Cg 12/s 0817). --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1352 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sham Kunwar Sahu W/o Lakheshwar Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Thana - Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 2 - Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Thana - Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Govind Sahu S/o Lakheshwar Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Smt. Sham Kunwar Sahu , R/o Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Thana - Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekari, Thana And Tahsil - Pamgarh District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12 / S/0817) (Driver ), 2 - Pankaj Jindal S/o Kishori Lal Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila, Thana Naila District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12 / S/0817) ( Owner ) 3 - Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Limited, Branch Office - Gurukripa Tower, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Amber Auto Mobile Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. C.G. 12 / S/0817) (Insurer), --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1184 of 2019 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Gurukripa Towers, 2nd Floor Opposite Ambar Automobile Vyapat Vihar Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Guru 5 Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgah.............(App. N.A. No.3), ---Appellant Versus Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3 P.S. Kotwali Korba Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgah.............(Claimants) 2 - Minor Govind Sahu S/o Lakheshwar Sahu Minors Respondent No. 02 Through Guardian Father Lakheshwar Sahu Res. No.1, R/o Near Sant Rajaram Dharam Shala, Ward No. 36, Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimants), 3 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekri P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver Of The Hyva Truck Bearing No. C.G.12/s 0817)............(Driver), 4 - Pankaj Jandal S/o Kishori Lal Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila P.S. Naila District- Janjgir-Campa, Chhattisgarh.............(Owner Of The Hyva Truck Bearing No. C.G.12/s 0817)............(Owner), --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1007 of 2019 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Gurukripa Towers 2nd Floor Opposite Ambar Automobile Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limted 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 ---Appellant Versus 1 - Lakheshwar Sahu S/o Late Sonalal Sahu R/o Village Purani Basti Rani Road Korba Ward No. 3, Police Station Kotwali Korba Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), 2 - Gyanchand Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Mekri Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Hyva Truck Bearing No. C.G. 12/s 0817), 3 - Pankaj Jindal S/o Kishori Lal Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila, Police Station Naila District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Hyva Truck Bearing No. C.G. 12/s 0817) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate (MAC/1336/2019, 1342/2019 & 1352/2019) Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate (MAC/1007/2019, 1164/2019 & 1184/2019) For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate, Mr. R. L. Rajak, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. Brief facts of these cases are that on 15.10.2017, the deceased Sona Lal Sahu was going Korba from village Singhari on his motorcycle bearing regisration No. CG-12-AC-6759 alongwith his son Lakheshwar and grandson Dev Kumar Sahu. Dev Kumar Sahu was driving the said 7 motorcycle. At about 8:00 A.M., when they reached near Kenvtadih Bhutha Sasha Pool, the offending vehicle, a hyva truck bearing Registration No. CG–12–S–0817, which was being driven by driver- Gyanchand Sahu, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the motorcycle turned turtle. In the said accident, Sona Lal Sahu and Dev Kumar Sahu sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, whereas Lakheshwar sustained injuries. 2. Pertaining to said accident, three separate claim cases were instituted before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: Claim Case No. 756/2017 was filed by Lakheshwar Sahu son of deceased Sona Lal Sahu & Govind Sahu S/o. Lakheshwar Sahu claiming compensation on account of the death of Sona Lal Sahu. The Claim Case No. 759/2017 was filed by Lakheshwar Sahu seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Claim Case No. 698/2017 was filed by Smt. Sham Kumar Sahu (wife of Lakheshwar), Lakheswar Sahu and Govind Sahu, claiming compensation on account of the death of Dev Kumar Sahu. 3. The learned Tribunal heard all three matters and passed separate awards in each claim case. Aggrieved by the awards, the Insurance Company has preferred appeals before this Court: M.A.C. No. 1164/2019, against the award passed in Claim Case No. 698/2017 (death of Dev Kumar Sahu). M.A.C. No. 1007/2019, against the award passed in Claim Case No. 759/2017 (injury to Lakheshwar Sahu). M.A.C. No. 1184/2019, against the award passed in Claim Case No. 756/2017 (death of Sona Lal Sahu). 4. MAC No.1336 of 2019:- 5. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8 6. After arguing for sometime, Mr. Singroul would not press this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 7. MAC No. 1352 of 2019. 8. Heard on I.A. No. 1, an application for condonation of delay. 9. On due consideration, the application is allowed and delay caused in filing of appeal is hereby condoned. 10. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Dev Kumar Sahu, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, waist, and other parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Pachpedi, where Crime No. 162/2017 was registered against the driver of the offending Hyva truck. The claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of 60,00,000 ₹ , inter alia, on the ground that the age of the deceased, namely Dev Kumar Sahu, was 20 years, and he was working as a plumber earning 30,000/- per month. ₹ 11. The driver, owner, and the Insurance Company filed replies to the claim case and denied the averments. They pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The Insurance Company specifically contended that there was a breach of policy conditions. However, despite such pleading, the Insurance Company did not examine any witness to substantiate the plea of breach of policy. 12. The learned Tribunal framed issues and parties led their evidence, but the insurance company failed to examine any witness to prove the breach of policy. 13. The learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 31.01.2019, granted compensation to the tune of 7,10,400/- ₹ with interest at the rate of 6% 9 per annum. The Tribunal fastened liability upon the driver, owner, and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the age of the deceased was 20 years and he was working as Plumber. He would contend that the learned Tribunal considered income of the deceased to the tune of 4,500/- ₹ , whereas minimum wage payable to the semi skilled worker in the year 2017 was ₹8,580/-; thus, the award passed by the learned Tribunal requires modification. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s) would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the claimants and support the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident, i.e., 15.10.2017, the minimum wage for semi-skilled labourers was 8,580/- per month ₹ . The learned Tribunal, however, considered the monthly income of the deceased to be only 4,500/- ₹ , which is below the notified minimum wages. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the notional income of the deceased requires reconsideration. Accordingly, dependency part is revisited hereunder:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income (Minimum Wages calculation 8580 x 40% = 3432; 8580 + 3432 12,012 Rs. 12,012 2. Annual Income 12,012 x 12 = 1,44,144 Rs.1,44,144 3. After 50% Deduction 1,44,144 x 1/2 = 72,072 Rs.72,072 4. Multiplier (18) - Loss of 72,072 x 18 = 12,97,296 Rs.12,97,296 10 Dependency 5. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 3 40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000 + 20% = 1,44,000 Rs.1,44,000 6. Funeral Expenses & Loss of Estate 15,000 + 15,000 30,000 + 20% = 36,000 Rs.36,000 8. Total Rs.17,05,524 9. Already Awarded amount Rs.7,10,400 9. Total Compensation Rs.17,05,524 – Rs.7,10,400 = 9,95,124 Rs.9,95,124 10. Additional Amount Payable Rs.9,95,124 The total compensation determined by this Court comes to Rs.17,05,524. Since, Rs.7,10,400 has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, after deducting the already awarded sum, the net additional amount payable by the insurance company to the claimants is Rs.9,95,124 (Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Four only). 17.Appeal is allowed in part. 18.MAC No.1342 of 2019 19.Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application for condonation of delay. 20. On due consideration, the application is allowed and delay caused in filing of appeal is hereby condoned. 21. The undisputed facts are that on 15.10.2017, claimant/appellant Lakeshwar sustained serious injuries in the accident. He suffered injuries 11 over his left thigh, left leg, knee, and other parts of the body. He was initially provided treatment at Primary Health Centre, Pagarh, and thereafter referred to Sahu Hospital, Korba. It is the case of the appellant that he was working as a Plumber and earning 30,000/- per ₹ month, but due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to continue his work and has suffered physical as well as mental agony. He claimed compensation to the tune of 12,00,000/- on various heads. ₹ 22. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at the lower side. He submits that grievous injuries were sustained by the appellant and he remained hospitalized for 11 days; however, this fact has not been considered by the Tribunal. He contends that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on various heads and thus, he would pray to enhance the amount. 23. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that no bony injury was sustained by the claimant and relevant medical documents were not produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. The respondents further submit that medical bills submitted by the appellant have been honored by the learned Tribunal. It is also contended that the appellant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove the nature of injuries and the medical expenses. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has already awarded just and proper compensation, which does not call for interference. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. A perusal of the record of Claim Case No. 759/2017 would show that the details of medical expenses and expenditure have not been specifically pleaded in the claim application, nor any evidence has been 12 led in this regard. The medical documents produced were exhibited as Ex. P/6 to Ex. P/48. 26. As per the vouchers and bills, the total medical expenditure came to ₹20,818/-, and it was honored by the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to award the further claim of 74,000/- towards surgery expenses, as the ₹ treating doctor was not examined to prove such expenditure. 27. On other heads, the Tribunal has awarded 20,000/- for physical and ₹ mental agony and 5,000/- towards special diet. It is further observed ₹ by the Tribunal that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹45,802/ - along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 28. In the considered opinion of this Court, no good ground is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 29. MAC/1007/2019, 1164/2019 & 1184/2019:- 30. The insurance company has challenged the awards passed in all three claim cases primarily on the ground that though the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was transferred, the route permit was not transferred in favour of the purchaser, and therefore the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 31. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company would submit that the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG–12– S–0817 was initially registered in the name of Vinayak Metal and Minerals, FIGMC Nagar, District Korba. Subsequently, the vehicle was purchased by Pankaj Jindal and the registration was duly transferred in his name. However, no steps were taken to transfer the permit, though the same was valid up to 24.10.2022. He would contend that though 13 the learned Tribunal considered this aspect, it erroneously fastened the liability upon the insurance company. 32. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 558, wherein it has been held that under Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority, and in the absence of transfer of permit, the insurance company cannot be made liable. 33. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the submission made by counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company and the insurance policy was valid and effective on the date of the accident; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on insurance company. 34. Mr. Ram Lal Rajak, appearing for the driver and owner would also support the award and submit that since the insurance policy was valid on the date of accident, the Tribunal has correctly fastened the liability upon the insurer. 35.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 36.The Coordinate Bench in the matter of Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rita Verma & ors. (MAC/351/2022), while dealing with the issue involved in these appeals, relying upon the proposition of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 in paras No. 8, 9, 10 & 11, held as under:- 14 “8. In this regard, Section 82 of the Act of 1988 may be noticed herein profitably which defines transfer of permit as under :- "82. Transfer of permit. (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorized by the permit. 2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself: Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the transport authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified." 9. A careful perusal of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 would show that a permit shall not be transferable from one 15 person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and Section 82(1) also reiterates that it shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 is pari materia to provision contained under Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Ravi Roadways v. Asia BI and Others [1970 (2) SCC 259], Exercise of the power to sanction the transfer of a permit under Section 59(1) of the Act of 1939 is quasi-judicial, and the State Government is not competent to impose any restriction upon the exercise of that power by issuing executive instructions. As such, unless the permit is transferred in the name of new owner, it cannot operate automatically in his favour even though the vehicle has been transferred in his name. 10.Coming to the facts of the present case in light of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988, it is quite vivid that though the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of Sanjay Chouhan i.e. respondent No. 5 herein but the permit was neither transferred by the Transport Authority in his favour nor it was sought by him and it was subsequently renewed at the instance of respondent No. 5 herein from 18/11/2016 to 17/11/2021, therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 10/11/2016, the permit was not operative in his name and the permit already issued in favour of the erstwhile owner namely Neelu Vachhani would stand lapsed and would cease to operate in light of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988. Thus, it can safely be concluded that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such, the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable to make payment for compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants. 11. In view of the reasons mentioned herein-above, the impugned judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal to the extent of fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set aside. However, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the appellant (Insurance Company) is 16 directed to firstly pay the amount of compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 herein.” 37. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case in the light of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the appeals preferred by the insurance company are allowed to the extent that the insurance company shall first satisfy the award in favour of the claimants, and thereafter shall be entitled to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim