1 2026:CGHC:25738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 672 of 2021 1 - The New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Hvya Truck No. Ka - 34-A-7096). ... Appellant versus 1 - Babita Wd/o Late Mandeep Singh Panghal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana)., District : Hisar, Haryana. 2 - Praveen S/o Late Mandeep Singh Panghal, Aged About 12 Years, No. 2 Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Babita Wd/o Late Manddep Singh Panghal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana). 3 - Diksha D/o Late Mandeep Singh Panghal, Aged About 17 Years, No. 3 Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Babita Wd/o Late Manddep Singh Panghal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana). 4 - Sujata D/o Late Mandeep Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana). 5 - Smt. Santosh W/o Sube Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana). 6 - Sube Singh S/o Rishal Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bhagana Hisar, District Hisar (Haryana). 7 - Hemchand Dhankar S/o Khubi Ram Dhankar Aged About 34 Years R/o Pahra, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Hvya Truck No. Ka-34-A-7096). 8 - Paras Nath Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tekari, Post Office Madhar Colony, Police Station Dharsiwa, SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.06.27 15:53:15 +0530 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Hvya Truck No. Ka - 34-A-7096). ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. ) Order On Board 23/06/2026 1.This is an Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 24.08.2021 passed by Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in MACT No. 828/2019, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.13,24,000/-, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant Insurance Company. 2.The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 02.03.2019, the deceased, Mandeep Singh Panghal, was travelling towards Barela on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-32-B-1273 via Akoli–Raipur Road. When he reached near Limahi Chowk, Bahera, the driver of the offending Hiwa Truck bearing Registration No. KA-34-A-7096, namely Hemchand Dhankar, while driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, dashed violently against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the said accident, Mandeep Singh Panghal sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. On the basis of the report lodged in respect of the accident, an offence bearing Crime No. 87/2019 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver at Police Station Barela, District 3 Bemetara, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed before the competent Court. The claimants, who are the parents, wife and children of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.74,56,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award total compensation of Rs.13,24,000/- in favour of the claimants, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law based on the evidence available on record. She would further submits that the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the owner i.e. respondent No. 8 herein namely Paras Nath Sahu, however, the permit was not transferred, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. She would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others¹ and submit that at the most, the Claims Tribunal could have directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to firstly pay the compensation to the Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, however, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) in absence of valid permit, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4 4.No one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 7 and 8 in final hearing of this case. 5.The question involved in this appeal is, whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation even though the accident occurred on 02.03.2019 and the permit was not transferred in the name of the Paras Nath Sahu i.e. respondent No. 8 herein ? 6.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 vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised 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." 7. A careful perusal of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 would show that a permit shall not be transferable from person to another 5 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 Others², 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. 8.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 Paras Nath Sahu i.e. respondent No. 8 herein but the permit was neither transferred by the Transport Authority in his favour nor it was sought by him, therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 02.03.2019, the permit was not operative in his name and the permit already issued in favour of the erstwhile owner namely Shankar Enterprises 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 6 (Insurance Company) would not be liable to make payment for compensation to respondents No. 1 to 6/Claimants. 9.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 directed to firstly pay the amount of compensation to respondents No. 1 to 6/Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8 herein. Cross-objection/Appeal 10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 6/claimants submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed notional income as Rs. 7,200/- per month which is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably. 11.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12.It was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Mandeep Singh Panghal was aged about 39 years and he was working as a Manager at Haryana Agriculture Farm, Kakrel, Sonani (Rajnandgaon) and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- but no appropriate documentary evidence in support thereof has 7 been adduced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 8,140/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.97,680/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 24,420/- as has rightly held by the Tribunal, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,22,100/-. 13.The deceased was aged about 39 years and was married and the claimants are the parents, wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/4 i.e., 30,525/-, as has rightly held by the Tribunal, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 91,575/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 14, as has rightly held by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 12,82,050/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs.44,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,64,000/-. Therefore, 8 the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,79,050/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Compensation towards dependency Rs. 12,82,050/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 03 Towards Love and affection to all the six claimants @ Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 2,64,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total compensation Awarded Rs. 15,79,050/- 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 15,79,050/-. After deducting Rs. 13,24,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,55,050/-. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed and is hereby disposed of in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 9. The cross-objection filed by the claimants is also allowed, and the award is enhanced and modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/-Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) $ourabh JUDGE