Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Eman Lakra

Chhattisgarh HC18 Aug 2023MAC/336/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modifies awards in motor accident claims. The court held the insurer liable as the driver's fake license was unproven. It enhanced compensation for the deceased and injured claimants by adding notional income, future prospects, and specific heads of damage like pain and suffering, dismissing the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced for deceased claimant to Rs. 5,63,600/-. Compensation for injured claimants increased by Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 50,000 respectively. Interest at 6% awarded on enhanced amounts. Insur

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Eman Lakra — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.336 of 2016

¶3

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, National Corporate House, Opposite Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶4

---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Eman Lakra, W/o Niman Lakra, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...........Claimant, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Sanjay Singh S/o R. Singh, R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No.7 Cuttuck (Orissa) Presently R/o Through Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Driver

¶8

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Owner

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 337 of 2016

---- Appellant

Versus

Smt. Sushila W/o Late Dharampal, Aged About 22 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Bokhi, Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Ku. Tanuja D/o Late Dharampal, Aged 3 Year 6 Months, Minor Through Mother Smt. Sushila Chouhan, R/o Village Bokhi, PostPandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Preetam S/o Late Dharampal, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Sushila Chouhan, R/o Village Bokhi, PostPandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Ichchha Shankar Chouhan S/o Lachhanram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bokhi, Post Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Bhulanti Bai W/o Ichchhashankar Chouhan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bokhi, Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Respondents 1 to 5 are Claimants

¶20

Sanjay Singh S/o R. Singh, R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No.7 Cuttuck Orissa Presently R/o Through Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Driver

¶21

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Owner

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

AND

¶24

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 364 of 2016

---- Appellant

Versus

Smt. Suchita Minj W/o Sudhir Minj, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ............Claimant

¶29

Sanjay Singh S/o R. Singh, R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No.7 Cuttuck (Orissa) Presently R/o Through Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Driver

¶30

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Owner

¶31

---- Respondents

¶32

AND

¶33

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 371 of 2016

---- Appellant

Versus

Smt. Suchita Minj W/o Late Mangal Minj, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶38

Neeraj Minj S/o Late Mangal Minj, Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Suchita Minj, R/o Village And Post- Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...........Respondents 1 & 2 are Claimants

¶39

Sanjay Singh S/o R. Singh, R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No.7 Cuttuck (Orissa) Presently R/o Through Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Driver

¶40

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............Owner

¶41

---- Respondents

¶42

AND

¶43

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 804 of 2016

¶44

Smt. Suchita Minj W/o Shri Sudhir Minj, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village / Post Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.......Claimant

¶45

---- Appellant

¶46

Versus

¶47

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devendan Singh, aged about 56 years, Occupation-Owner of the Vehicle, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.....Owner

¶48

Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri R. Singh, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, Permanent R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No. 7, Katak, Odisha At Present R/o Rampukar Singh, S/o

¶49

Late Devendan Singh, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh........Driver

¶50

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 412-413, 4th Floor Ravi, Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......Insurer

¶51

---- Respondents

¶52

AND

¶53

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 808 of 2016

¶54

Smt. Suchita Minj W/o Late Shri Mangal Minj, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village/post Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶55

Neeraj Minj, S/o Late Shri Mangal Minj, Through Natural Mother Smt. Suchita Minj, W/o Late Shri Mangal Minj, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village / Post Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, .......Appellants No.1 & 2 are Claimants

¶56

---- Appellants

¶57

Versus

¶58

Sanjay Singh S/o Shri R. Singh, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, Permanent R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No. 7, Katak, Odisha, At Present R/o Rampukar Singh, S/o Late Devnandan Singh, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh......Driver

¶59

Rampukar Singh, S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 56 Years Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.......Owner

¶60

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 412-413, 4th Floor Ravi, Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......Insurer

¶61

---- Respondents

¶62

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 809 of 2016

¶63

Smt. Eman Lakda W/o Shri Niman Lakda, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village/post Pandaripani, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh......Claimant

¶64

---- Appellant

¶65

Versus

¶66

Rampukar Singh S/o Late Devnandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.....Owner

¶67

Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri R. Singh, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, Permanent R/o Ramnagar Road, Ward No. 7, Katak Odisha, At Present R/o Rampukar Singh, R/o Kodatarai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.......Driver

¶68

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 412-413, 4th Floor Ravi, Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......Insurer

¶69

---- Respondents

¶70

________________________ For Claimants	_________________________________ : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate
For Insurance Company	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶71

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶72

Order On Board

¶73

18/08/2023

¶74

On 25.07.2010 about 9:15 AM, near the village Kudumkela, driver of vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 13 A 7001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No. CG 14 C 0118, due to that Smt. Eman Lakda and Smt. Suchita Minj who were seated in Bolero received injuries on their bodies. One Ravi Jhonson and one Dharampal who were also seated in said Bolero died. The claimant/injured Eman Lakda and Suchita Minj filed separate applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation which were registered as Claim Case No.40/2012 and Claim Case No. 41/2012 before the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims

¶75

Tribunal'). Legal heirs of deceased Ravi Jhonson and Dharampal filed two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation which were registered as Claim Case No. 149/2011 & Claim Case No. 168/2011. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence of both parties and after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties, passed separate orders in each of the claim petitions on 13.10.2015.

¶76

The Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimant/injured Smt. Suchita Minj and passed an award of Rs. 1,69,795/-, partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimant/injured Smt. Eman Lakda and passed an award of Rs. 1,72,259/-, partly allowed the claim petition filed by legal heirs of deceased Ravi Jhonson and passed an award of Rs. 1,15,000/and also partly allowed the claim petition filed by legal heirs of deceased Dharampal and passed an award of Rs. 10,25,778/-.

¶77

Injured/Claimant Smt. Suchita Minj filed MAC No./804/2016, injured/Claimant Smt. Eman Lakda filed MAC No./809/2016 and legal heirs of deceased Ravi Jhonson filed MAC No./808/2016 for enhancement of compensation before this Court. No appeal has been filed by legal heirs of deceased Dharampal before this Court.

¶78

As the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability of compensation only upon Insurance Company, therefore, MAC No. 336/2016, MAC No. 337/2016, MAC No. 364/2016 & MAC No. 371/2016 have been preferred by the Insurance Company for reduction of the compensation.

¶79

Since, all the appeals related to same accident between the offending vehicle and Bolero bearing Registration No. CG 14 C 0118, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by this common order.

¶80

Learned Counsel appearing for Insurance Company submits that

¶81

since at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not posses valid and effective driving license and he was possessed fake driving license, therefore, there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶82

Learned Counsel appearing for Claimants of deceased Ravi Jhonson submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,15,000/- on account of death of Ravi Jhonson which is very lower side. While assessing award of compensation of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has not assessed any income of the deceased who was aged about 18 years. As the incident is of the year 2010, therefore, income of the deceased ought to have assessed on notional basis. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not added any amount towards his future prospects. Hence, it is prayed that amount of compensation of deceased Ravi Jhonson may suitably be enhanced.

¶83

Learned Counsel appearing for injured/Claimants submits that in other conventional heads, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of these Claimants is very lower side which may suitably be enhanced. As regards to liability fastened upon the Insurance Company, the Counsel submits that it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not posses valid and effective driving license and he was possessed fake driving license but, this fact has not been proved by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the Insurance Company.

¶84

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶85

10.As regards to liability part is concerned, undisputedly, the

¶86

Insurance Company pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, did not posses valid and effective driving license. Rather, he was possessed fake driving license. Thus, a specific pleading was made by the Insurance Company that driver of the offending vehicle was possessed fake driving license but, in this regard, the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence before the Claims Tribunal despite sufficient opportunities have been given by the Claims Tribunal for adducing documents. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly arrived on the conclusion that there is no breach in terms and conditions of the insurance policy and rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company.

¶87

As regards to the claim of deceased Ravi Jhonson is concerned. On careful perusal of the award shows that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed any income of deceased Ravi Jhonson. Undisputedly, at the time of incident, the deceased was aged about 18 years, therefore, his income should be assessed on notional basis. As the incident was of the year 2010, therefore, notional income of the deceased would be 3000/- monthly, 36,000/- yearly. Ordered accordingly. The Claims Tribunal has not added any amount towards his future prospects, as the deceased was aged about 18 years and was self employed, therefore, as observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of his established income should be added towards future prospects (36000+14400= 50,400/-). and deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses would be applicable (50400-25200=25,200/-). Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years, multiplier of 18 should be applied (25200 x 18 = 4,53,600/-). With regard to other conventional heads as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the claimants of Ravi Jhonson are

¶88

entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000 + 40,000 (each) towards filial consortium, total 1,10,000/-, Now the Appellant/Claimants of MAC No. 808/2016 are entitled to get(453600+110000) Rs. 5,63,600/- instead of Rs.1,15,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,63,600/- shall carry interest @ 6 % from the date of filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶89

As regards to the claim of injured Suchita Minj is concerned. From the evidence, it is well established that the injured was admitted in Hospital situated at Raipur from 25.07.2010 to 27.08.2010 i.e. about a month. On careful perusal of the award shows that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in other conventional heads to this injured which appears to be lower side, therefore, the injured is additionally entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious diet, Rs.10,000/- towards expenses on attendant and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Total 45,000/-. Now the Appellant/Claimant of MAC No. 804/2016 is entitled to get (169795+45000) Rs. 2,14,795/- instead of Rs.169795/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,14,795/- shall carry interest @ 6 % from the date of filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶90

As regards to the claim of injured Eman Lakda is concerned. From the evidence, it is well established that the injured was admitted in Hospital situated at Raipur about a month. On careful perusal of the award shows that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in other conventional heads to this injured which appears to be lower side, therefore, this injured is also additionally entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious diet, Rs.10,000/- towards

¶91

expenses on attendant and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Total 50,000/-. Now the Appellant/Claimant of MAC No. 809/2016 is entitled to get (172259+50000) Rs. 2,22,259/- instead of Rs.172259/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,22,259/- shall carry interest @ 6 % from the date of filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶92

14.Resultantly, the appeals preferred by the Claimants are partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are hereby dismissed.

¶93

Sd/-

¶94

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶95

Shubham

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Eman Lakra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Eman Lakra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh @ Ganeshan and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Joshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Nazib Vs Rajendra Khandekar

Sudhuram and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Suchita Minj Vs Sanjay Singh

Minor Ku. Divya Vs Pooran Singh Sen