1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1628 of 2016 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Colony Raurkela (Orissa), Branch Office Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Through The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer, ... Appellant versus 1 - Dulsai Nat S/o Doulat Nat Danchgha, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Mu. Malti W/o Dulsai Nat (Danchgha), Aged About 35 Years 3 - Suraj Nat S/o Dulsai Nat (Danchgha) Aged About 14 Years Respondent No.3 is Minor Through Natural Guardian Dulsai Nat S/o Doulat Nat, Respondents No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Raibar, P.S. And Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh...............Claimants, 4 - Premprakash Singh S/o Lalan Singh, Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Near Belpahar Crossing P.S. Belpahar District- Jharsugra Orissa ................Driver, 5 - Krishna Singh S/o Dwarika Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o New Aal Petrol Pump Belpahar P.S. Belpahar District Jharsugra Orissa .................Owner, ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents 4 & 5: : Shri Sourabh Barman appears on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 07/10/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company against the impugned award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No.49/2015 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- in favour of Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:40 +0530 2 claimants while making the Non-applicants, in particular, Non-applicant No.3/insurance company liable to indemnify the compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. Parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the learned Claims Tribunal. 2. As per the averments in claim petition, on 07.04.2015 at 5:20 pm, the deceased Akash Nat and one Suraj Nat were going on bicycle to Barber shop, at that time, the bicycle was dashed by the Truck bearing registration No.OD/23-A/6371 (for short, the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver/Non- applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased Akash Nat, who was sitting as pillion rider, succumbed to the injuries on the spot. At the time of accident, Non-applicant No.1 Premprakash Singh was the driver, Non- applicant No.2 Krishna Singh was the owner whereas the appellant (Non-applicant No.3) was insurer of the Offending Vehicle 3. A claim petition was filed by the claimants/appellants seeking total compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- under various heads, pleading, inter alia, that the deceased was a boy of 8 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- month by helping his elder father in showing juggling and tricks. 4. The Claim Petition was resisted by the Non-applicants on various grounds including that the appellant/insurance company taking the plea that there is breach of policy condition that the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit on the date of accident. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, had held the driver/Non-applicant No.1 liable for accident: the deceased died of injuries received by him and that the appellant/insurer could not prove any breach of policy conditions, assessed and awarded the total compensation as mentioned in opening paragraph. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 29.07.2016, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. Not being satisfied by the amount of 3 compensation, the claimants also filed Cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer, submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and that, although it was registered in State of Orissa State but the accident happened at village Chikhli in Chhattisgarh State, at the time of accident, Non-applicant No.1 was not possessing valid and effective permit to ply the same in the State of Chhattisgarh, which is in violation of policy condition. In this regard, he placed his reliance on a decision rendered in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Others vs. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558. He further submits that the age of the deceased boy was 8 years, however, Tribunal has erred in using multiplier of 15, which is on higher side. He also contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on higher side and there is no scope for interference in enhancing the compensation. On these premises, he urged that the impugned award may suitably be modified and exonerated the insurance company while praying for dismissal of the cross-appeal. 8. On the other hand, Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants in Cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation, submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on very lower side. The Tribunal has erred in assessing low monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and that, the other conventional heads awarded by it are also on lower side, which needs to be modified suitably. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thangavel & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Civil Appeal No.3595 of 2024) reported in 2025 INSC 949, where 9 – 10 years boy has died due to vehicular accident, awarded Rs.7,50,000/- under loss of dependency and after adding other conventional heads and loss/damages, total compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- was 4 awarded. On these premises, he urged that amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 9. However, Shri Sourabh Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle), submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company on the date of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record in its true perspective, has rightly held the appellant/insurer liable to indemnify the compensation, which does not call for interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record carefully. 11. It is not disputed that the deceased boy Akash Nat was 8 years old by and on 07.04,2015 when he was proceeding on a cycle being seated as pillion rider, the cycle was hit by the offending vehicle at village Chikhli before Malikram Hotel, Police Station Pussor, Dist. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), as a result of which, the deceased boy sustained grievous injuries and died. It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was registered at R.T.O. Orissa State and on the date of accident, no permit was produced by the Non-applicants 1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner to ply the same within the State of Chhattisgarh. It is pertinent to mention here that although the Non-applicants 1 & 2, driver and owner, have filed their written statement, but they have not been examined themselves before the Tribunal nor examined any witness on their behalf nor have they also produced the valid and effective permit entitling the offending vehicle to ply in the State of Chhattisgarh on the date of accident. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective permit and accordingly it is held that on the date of accident, no valid and effective permit was produced by the driver or owner and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions. In Amrit Paul Singh and Others vs. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited (supra), while observing that driving of a vehicle without valid permit and fitness 5 certificate would be considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy, has held in para 24 as under: “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 12. In the light of above, it is held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same in the State of Chhattisgarh. 13. Now, so far as cross-appeal filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants is concerned, the deceased-boy was 8 years old and the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased-boy as Rs.3,000/- and awarded the total loss of dependency at Rs.2,70,000/- and after adding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, worked out the total amount of compensation to Rs.2,95,000/-. The above assessment made by the learned Claims Tribunal, when examined in the light of judgment dated 08.08.2025 rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Thangavel & Ors. (supra), is on lower side. In that case, the deceased boy was 10 years old and while cycling to school 6 was hit by a bus of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, while considering the age of the deceased-child, who has died in the vehicular accident, worked out the loss of dependency to Rs.7,50,000/-. In addition to this, considering the decision of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium to the parents and after adding amounts towards other conventional heads, other expenses and loss of articles, awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/-. 14. In the light of decision of the Supreme Court as referred herein above and considering the other material available on record, the deceased-boy in this case is held entitled to total loss of dependency of Rs.7,50,000/- and in addition, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.40,000/- each (total comes to Rs.80,000/-) towards filial consortium to the parents, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for loss of damage to the cycle and in this way, the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to total amount of compensation of Rs.8,62,000/-. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is allowed and the appellant/insurance company is exonerated from its liability. The Cross-appeal filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 is also allowed in part. After deducting the compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,67,000/-. Since it is already held by this Court in preceding paragraph that on the date of incident, the driver owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of policy conditions, therefore, it is directed that the driver & owner (Non-applicants No.1 & 2) shall pay the compensation awarded by this Court, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 16. As regards the payment of compensation, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) SCC 650 and also considering the fact that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with 7 appellant/Insurance Company and that the claimants are third party, I direct the appellant/ insurance company to pay the compensation amount first to the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants and then recover the same from the Non- applicants 1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. The amount of compensation as awarded by this Court shall be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within a period of two months. As regards disbursement of the compensation to the claimants as awarded by this Court, it is directed that the amount of compensation payable to the claimants and the amount to be kept in a Nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit as well as the period thereof, shall be determined by the concerned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani