Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. v. Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2012MAC/478/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against Motor Tribunal award following a fatal accident involving a tractor-trolley. Court held deceased not covered under policy due to illegal usage but allowed part of award. After applying 50% contributory negligence and correcting quantum calculation, modified compensation grant.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation awarded Rs. 2,01,500/- after applying 50% contributory negligence to the computed sum of Rs. 4,03,000/-.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors. — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. Hl^ / 2011

¶4

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Oivision Bencli

¶6

APPELLANT	,,-Reliance General,	Insurance Conapany
/^flnsurer)	Limited, through -	It's Legal Manager,
	Reliance General	Insurance Company
	Limited, Shop No.	412 - 413, 4th Floor,
	Ravi Bhavan, Nea	r Jaistambh Chowk,
	G.E. Road, Raipur	(Chhattisgarh)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS '^l/ Smt. Kamin Bai, aged about 35 years,

¶9

Clainiants wd/o Late Ramkumar @ Munna '.'• Dhruv.

¶10

.-^1?

¶11

...<g%.>"''.,

¶12

/••* .„..<*<.-A^' .^2. Ravishankar, aged ab.out 15 years S/o

¶13

^b>-^ f^TBi ? Ramkumar @ Munna Dhruv.

¶14

^^ 3. Suraj, aged about 10 years S/o "''/' Ramkumar @ Munna Dhruv.

¶15

1. Maheshwari, aged about 04 years, D/o

¶16

tj Ramkumar @ Munna Dhruv. Respondent no. 2 to 4 are minor represented through respondent no.l mother.

¶17

1. Smt. Parvati Dhruv, aged about 65

¶18

,--9 years, Wd/o Jethu Dhruv, All R/o Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

Driver 6, Sukhiram Dhruv, S/o Rajkumar <" Dhruv, R/o Lalbahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. & Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶20

Owner 7. Rekhchand Koshley, aged about 40 years, S/o not known to the appellant company, R/o Patpar, Lal Bahadur Shastsri Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. & Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur

¶21

APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 3,25.500/-

¶22

Court fee affixed at Rs. 15/-

¶23

HIGH COURT QF CIIHAmSGARH : BILASPUR

¶24

M. A. fC) No. 478 of 2011

¶25

Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company

¶26

Versus Respondents Smt. Kamin Bai & others

¶27

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEmCLES ACT, 1988

¶28

DB: Hon'ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi SE Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ

¶29

Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶30

Shri Kshitiz Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No. 6 8s 7.

¶31

None for the other respondents, though served.

¶32

ORDER (Qral)

¶33

( Passed on this 1st day ofFebruary, 2012 )

¶34

Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J.

¶35

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 1.2.2011, passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claiin Case No. 4/2010.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award.

¶37

The facts, in nutshell, are that in the intervening night of 30th and 31st December, 2009 at about l.&O a.m. in the night deceased Ram Kumar alias Munna was goin.g- for agriculture purpose to Kosanisara by sitting in the Tracfor^- Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 04ZG/3782 and 3783. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving of the'vehicle by the non-applicant No.l, deceased Ram Kuinar alias Munna fell down from the tractor and succurabed to the injuries.

¶38

—ra

¶39

¶40

The claimants/dependents of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 49,00,OOO/- under various heads.

¶41

Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, to pay a total sum of Rs. 3,25,500/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum froni the date of the application.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the driver and owner of the vehicle have not admitted that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle as a labour. There was no seating capacity in the tractor - trolley, except the driver. The vehicle was being driven in violation of Section 3 of the Road Regulation Act, 1989. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award. He further subtnits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was sitting on the joint of the tractor-trolley and he was in drunken condition.

¶43

<^..

¶44

¶45

On perusal of the insurance policy it is evident that it was a package policy^andthe premium^was paid^{undertheheads} LLP Paid Drivers (IMT40) No. ofPerson 1" and "LLP to Paid Driver/Cleaner/ Conductor (IMT39) No. of Person l". The deceased was neither a labour nor a member of the family of the agriculturist. Rule 97(7) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides that tractor - trailer may be used for carrying labourers and the member of the ^-;"~ • family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles or agriculture and for cariying persons at the time of Mela, Markets, Religious Functions, Marriages -and at other ceremonial occasipns.

¶46

¶47

¶48

.^^
/A. '^^^s§^^
i->!KS^

¶49

Thus, in the absence of any such occasion, it can safely be held that the liability of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy^{andthevehiclewasbeing} plied^{inviolationof theconditionsof} the insurance policy.

9 .

Now we shall proceed to examine the quantum part of the award. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the daily income of the deceased as Rs. 100/- and monthly income as Rs. 3000/-. Thus, the yearly^{incomeofthedeceasedwasassessedasRs.36,000/-,however,} learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1 / 3rd towards personal and living expenses, which should have been l/4th as there were five dependents. Similarly, looking to the aged of the deceased as 45 years the multiplier of 14 should have been applied instead of 13. Under the other heads the claimants are entitled for Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 10,000/for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses i.e. total Rs. 25,000/-. Thus taking into account the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-, after deducting l/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, we assess the yearly loss of depeiidency as Rs. 27,000/and multiplying it by 14 we award a suin of Rs. 3,78,000/- towards loss of dependency. By adding Rs. 25,000/under the conventional heads, according to us, the claimants are entitled for a.total sum of Rs. 4,03,000/-.

¶55

At this stage learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 6 and 7/driver and owner submits that the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased may be considered. It has come in evidence that the deceased was in drunken condition and instead of sitting either in the tractor or in the trolley, he was sitting on the joint (mundi) of the tractor and trolley. In other words,

¶56

¶57

-eS'x"3a'^, ;•"<» ^ f"\ %SS3S^''^?n;^SK% .^^ '':h,-.^/yI ^ ^ «;.- V"~.«S5"'

¶58

the deceased was sitting on the place where the tractor joins the trolley and thus there were every possibility that even in a jerk any person sitting on the joint of the tractor-trolley may fell down and may sustain injuries. Thus, it can safely be held that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% in the occurrence of accident.

¶59

Since we have held that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50%, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,01,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the owner of the vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶60

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

¶61

award is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

I-M.Quddusi Judge

Sd/-

G. Minhajuddin !%= Judge

¶66

Thakur

Reliance General Insurance Co. v. Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. v. Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shri Kishan Agrawal

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Motin Bai and Ors.

Reliance Genral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Radha Dhruv and Ors.

Fatte Singh Vs Lalita Das and Others

Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.L Vs Visheshwar Mishra and Others

Ashish Bhandge Vs Smt.Geeta Bhandge