1 2025:CGHC:58249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 247 of 2019 1. Smt. Gurve W/o Late Lakharam @Lakhma @ Lakhmo Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Bastanar P.S.Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Manglu @ Mahesh S/o Late Lakhamu @ Lakhma @ Lakhmo Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Bastanar P.S.Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Tulso D/o Late Lkhamu Aged About 15 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Bastanar P.S.Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Vishnu Kumar S/o Sukhram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ghotpal Nakapara Post Ghotpal, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh------(Driver), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2. Mohammad Dalil Anwar S/o Late Khalil Ahmad Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Ghotpal Nakapara, Post Ghotpal, P.S.Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh -----(Driver), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Laxman Avenue, Maharani Hospital Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ----(Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.10 16:51:42 +0530 2 WITH MAC No. 489 of 2019 1. Vishnu Kumar S/o Sukhram Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste Rout, R/o Village Ghotpal Nakapara, Post Ghotpal, Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Alleged Vehicle), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2. Mohd. Dalil Anwar S/o Late Khalil Ahmad, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Contractor, R/o Village Bacheli, R E S Colony, Police Station Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Alleged Vehicle), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Gurve W/o Late Lakhmu @ Lakhma @ Lakhmo Aged About 41 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Village Jamgaon Bastanar, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Manglu @ Mahesh S/o Late Lakhmu @ Lakhma @ Lakhmo Aged About 19 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Village Jamgaon Bastanar, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Tulso S/o Late Lakhmu Aged About 15 Years Caste Madiya Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gurve, R/o Village Jamgaon Bastanar, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Laxman Avenue Maharani Hospital Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 3)(Insurer Of The Alleged Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 1.12.2025 1) Claimants have filed MAC/247/2019 for enhancement of compensation whereas Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle have filed MAC/489/2019 challenging therein liability pertaining to the award passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place at Jagdalpur in Case No. 152/2016 dated 14.12.2018 whereby learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,50,400/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on account of death of Manku Ram Gawade and liability has been fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. 2) Facts of the present cases are that on 16.7.2015, deceased Manku Ram Gawade was travelling in the offending vehicle Pickup bearing registration No. CG–18–K–4631. Due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the vehicle turned turtle. In the accident, Manku Ram sustained grievous injuries and died. Claimants, who are the mother, brother and sister of the deceased moved claim application and pleaded that deceased was aged 22 years and was working as Cleaner earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 14,22,520/-. 3) Driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and pleaded that there was negligence on the part of deceased himself ; vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and the driver had 4 valid and effective driving license. Insurance Company filed reply and pleaded that offending vehicle was being plied in absence of the necessary documents. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award impugned was passed. 4) Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that learned Tribunal treated the deceased ‘unskilled labourer’ but computed his monthly income to be Rs. 4,500/- per month which is at lower side. He further submits that in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income, learned Tribunal should have applied the mimimum wage matrix applicable at the relevant time. He contends that in the month of July, 2015, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer was Rs. 5,787/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. He fairly submits that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He further contends that learned Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and thereafter recover the same from the onwer of the offending vehicle according to the law laid down in the matter of Manuara Khatun and Others Versus Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others1. He prays to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle 1. (2017) 4 SCC 796 5 submits that initially one Anwar Khan was revealed as driver of the offending vehicle by the complainant and later on, final report was filed against Vishnu Kumar (appellant No. 1 herein). He further submits that the offending vehicle was never driven by Vishnu Kumar, therefore claim case filed by the claimants was not maintainable before the learned Tribunal. With regard to permit, Mr. Agrawal submits that Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence to prove that vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit. He contends that deceased was a ‘Cleaner’ in the offending vehicle whereas learned Tribunal has treated him to be a gratuitous passenger, thus the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard is erroneous. He prays to fasten the liability with the Insurance Company. 6) Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that Insurance Company in reply has taken a specific plea of absence of permit. He further submits that driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce valid and effective permit before the learned Tribunal and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Versus TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others2 has held that where driver and owner failed to place on record documents to prove that the vehicle has a valid permit, onus of proof cannot be shifted upon the insurer. He contends that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and 2. (2018) 7 SCC 558 6 both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) Perusal of the award would show that claimants specifically pleaded that deceased was working as ‘Cleaner’ with the offending vehicle Pickup. The record would show that claimants could not prove this fact by leading cogent evidence, therefore learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased to be gratuitous passenger and an unskilled labourer. However, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the month of July, 2015 was Rs. 5,787/- and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Although it is not in dispute that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 9) Evidently, FIR was lodged on 16.7.2015 by one Gajlu Telami against against one Anwar Khan as driver of offending vehicle. In the Merg Intimation, name of Anwar Khan is clearly mentioned as driver of offending vehicle. Dehati Nalsi was registered on 16.9.2015 at 12:45 pm. On 16.9.2015, police seized the offending vehicle, its registration certificate , fitness certificate and insurance policy but permit was not produced by the owner of the vehicle. On the same date, police seized the driving license of Vishnu Kumar. Final report was filed on 21.11.2016 against driver 7 of offending vehicle Vishnu Kumar. Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle failed to make complaint before the superior police authorities against registration of FIR, seizure of vehicle ; seizure of driving license and filing of final report. 10) Smt. Gurve (AW/1) repeated the contents of claim application. Ku. Mamta Gawde (AW/2) who was also travelling in the offending vehicle on the fateful day stated that the deceased Manglu Ram was also travelling in the said vehicle and he was seated beside the driver. This witness admitted that 25-30 persons were travelling in that vehicle. 11) Shiv Subramanyam Iyer (NA-W/1) stated that additional premium of Rs. 25/- was taken to cover the life of a labourer/coolie. Anup Kumar Dubey (NA-W/2) stated that the offending vehicle was registered under the name of Mohammad Dalil Anwar on 9.7.2015. 12) Neither the claimants nor owner and driver established that the deceased was working as ‘Cleaner’ with the offending vehicle, therefore learned Tribunal rightly treated him unskilled labourer. Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle failed to lead evidence before learned Tribunal with regard to permit and same was never seized by the police and appellants herein also failed to produce that document before the learned Tribunal. The appellants also failed to prove that the deceased was not a 8 gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, therefore in my opinion, learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability with the Owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company and offense was registered against the owner of offending vehicle under Section 192A read with Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for absence of permit. 13) In the matter of Manuara Khatun (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, therefore Insurance Company should first satisfy the award and then recover the said amount from the insured by applying the principle of ‘pay and recover.’ 14) Taking into consideration the discussion made herein-above this Court is re-computing the compensation herein below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 54,000/- (@Rs. 4500 p.m.) Rs. 69,444/- (@ 5787 p.m.) 2. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 9,72,000/- (@18) Rs. 12,49,992 (@18) 3. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 13,60,800/- (@40%) Rs. 17,49,988/- (@40%) 4. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 6,80,400/- (@1/2) Rs. 8,74,994/- (@1/2) 9 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,50,400/- Rs. 9,44,994/- 15) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,44,994/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,94,594/-. The Insurance Company is made liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from the owner of offending vehicle, namely, Mohammed Dalil Anwar, in accordance with law. In conclusion, the Insurance Company is directed to pay/disburse the awarded compensation to the claimants first and recover the same from the owner. 16) If the owner has deposited 50% award amount persuant to interim order passed by this Court dated 31.1.2019, the Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount of award first and then recover the same from owner, otherwise similar procedure would apply to whole award amount. 17) Accordingly, the appeal preferred by claimants [MAC/247/2019] is allowed in part and the appeal preferred by the driver and owner of offending vehicle [MAC/489/2019] is dismissed and the 10 impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a