Dismissed

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited v. Fulbas

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2024MAC/1262/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeals against tribunal awards saddling liability on it for a fatal motorcycle-tractor accident, with claimants' cross objection seeking enhancement. The court upheld vehicle involvement and liability, removed the 40% contributory negligence finding, recomputed compensation per Pranay Sethi guidelines, and enhanced compensation from about Rs.22.19 lakh to Rs.59.47 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Insurer's appeal dismissed; cross-objection partly allowed: compensation enhanced from Rs.22,18,621/- to Rs.59,46,694/- with additional Rs.37,28,073/- carrying 6% interest payable within 90 days.

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 15

¶2

2024:CGHC:24936

¶3

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2024.09.18 17:40:39 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1258 of 2017

¶7

1 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite L.I.C. Building, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer of Tractor No. C.G.15 A E 3611.

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Kamlapati W/o Late Moharsai Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Sonamati D/o Late Moharsai Singh, Aged About 20 Years R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Ku. Sita Kuwar D/o Late Moharsai Singh, Aged About 18 Years R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Mukesh S/o Moharsai Singh, Aged About 15 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Kamlapati W/o Late Moharsai Singh, R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Ku. Sugandha D/o Late Moharsai Singh, Aged About 13 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Kamlapati W/o Late Moharsai Singh, R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Amarjit Singh Tekam S/o Nan, Aged About 75 Years R/o Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present C/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village Paihiya, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

7 - Manmati W/o Sanjay, Aged About 23 Years D/o Late Moharsai Singh, R/o Village Pahiya, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2 / 15

¶18

8 - Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Lalman Jaiswal, R/o Village Sarna, Post Kesari Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ...............Registered Owner Of Tractor No. C.G.15 A E 3611

¶19

9 - Shymasundar Jaiswal S/o Chandrikaprasad Jaiswal, R/o Village Chanwar Sarai, Post Pandri Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Tractor No. C.G.15 A E 3611

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

¶22

MAC No. 1262 of 2017

¶23

1 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite L.I.C. Building, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Tractor No. C G 15 A E 3611.

¶24

---- Appellant

¶25

versus

¶26

1 - Fulbas W/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

2 - Lilawati D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 30 Years W/o Gopal, R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

3 - Kalawati D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 28 Years W/o Dhansingh, R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶29

4 - Bimlawati D/o Late Shivsharan, Aged About 26 Years W/o Jokhan, R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

5 - Ku. Shitlawati D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

6 - Ku. Indrawati D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

7 - Ku. Sunita D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶33

8 - Fuleshwari W/o Late Dharmendra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶34

9 - Chandrashekhar S/o Late Dharmendra Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Mother Fuleshwari W/o Late Dharmendra R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶35

10 - Suryashekhar Singh S/o Late Dharmendra Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Their Mother Fuleshwari W/o Late Dharmendra R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶36

11 - Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Lalman Jaiswal, R/o Village Sarna, Post Kesari Raghunath Nagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Registered Owner of Tractor No. C G 15 A E 3611

¶37

3 / 15

¶38

12 - Shyamsundar Jaiswal S/o Chandrikaprasad Jaiswal, R/o Village Chanwar, Post Pandri, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Driver of Tractor No. C G 15 A E 3611.

¶39

13 - Parwati Markam 2nd Wife W/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bonga, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

14 - Smt. Sushila Marko D/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 25 Years W/o Dharmjit, R/o Village Bonga, Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶41

15 - Bhupendra Singh S/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bonga, Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶42

16 - Devendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shivsharan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bonga, Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

---- Respondents

¶44

For Appellants	:	Shri Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate.
For Respondents	:	Shri T.R. Patel and Shri K.K. Prajapati, Advocates.

¶45

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board

¶46

11.07 .2024

¶47

1. Both these appeals arise out of same accident and therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

¶48

2. Both the appeals have been filed against the impugned award dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surguja in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 58 of 2016 and 57 of 2016 respectively, whereby the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants have been saddled upon the appellant/insurance company.

¶49

3. In MAC No.1258 of 2017, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 7 have filed their cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶50

4 / 15

¶51

4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.06.2016 when the deceased Moharsai was coming to his village Raghunathpur by his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15-CA-7559 along with his co-employee Shivsharan (another deceased) and Gautam Singh, at about 7:45 pm and when they reached near village Pandri, the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.CG-15-AE-3611 which was just ahead the motorcycle of the deceased, suddenly turned the Tractor without giving any indication by which the motorcycle driven by the deceased Moharsai dashed with the Tractor and they met with an accident. The said offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1Shyamsundar, owned by Rajesh Jaiswal and insured by the appellant Chola Mandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. By the said accident, the driver of motorcycle Mohansai and one pillion rider Shivsharan died on spot. Another person Gautam Singh received grievous injuries in the said accident and he was admitted in the Hospital.

¶52

5. The matter was reported to the police upon which the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶53

6. The claimants who are wife, children and father of the deceased Moharsai filed their claim application before the Claims Tribunal with a pleading that deceased was a government Teacher and was earning Rs.34,316/- per month as salary. The claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased and on account of death of the deceased they are deprived by the same and therefore they claimed total compensation of Rs.70,37,795/-as compensation on various heads.

¶54

5 / 15

¶55

7. The non applicant No.2&3 have filed their written statement jointly and have stated that the accident was occurred due to negligent act of the deceased Moharsai himself. Non applicant No.3 was driving his vehicle carefully. The Driver of offending vehicle Tractor and Trolley were having valid fitness certificate, permit and valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.1 and therefore the liability to pay compensation, if any, is upon the insurance company.

¶56

8. The non applicant No.1, the insurance company has also filed its written statement, denied the claim and pleaded that motorcycle was being driven in triplet which is in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules. The accident was occurred due to negligent act of the driver of motorcycle himself and they themselves dashed with Tractor-Trolley which was parked on the road. The said motorcycle and Tractor was being driven in violation of policy condition. Non applicant No.3 was not having any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the Tractor. It was also pleaded that the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle have not been made as party/non-applicant in the case and thereby there is a non joinder of necessary party in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶57

9. Based on the pleadings of respective parties, the Tribunal framed four issues and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, passed the award of Rs.22,18,621/- in favour of the claimants and liability to pay compensation is fastened upon the insurance company which is under challenge in these appeals by the insurance company.

¶58

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the offending Tractor No.CG-15-AE-3611 and Trolley No.CG-15-

¶59

6 / 15

¶60

AE-3618 has falsely been implicated in the accident as FIR was registered against the unknown Tractor whereas, blue colour Trolley was seized by the police from the spot and at the time of filing of charge sheet after about 70 days of the accident, the seizure of red colour Tractor and Trolley have been made on 16.08.2016 which itself shows that wrong vehicle has been involved in the accident. Further, proper opportunity to lead evidence have not been given by the Tribunal to the insurance company and their application has been dismissed for recording evidence of their proposed witness Abhishek Choubey and thereby the Tribunal has passed erroneous award and has granted excessive compensation to the claimants.

¶61

11. While opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the insurance company, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 7/claimants would submit that although FIR was registered against unknown Tractor and Trolley, but after due investigation of the case, the police has seized the Tractor No.CG-15-AE-3611 and Trolley CG15-AE-3618. The colour of the vehicle may not have any relevance as the owner may change its colour between the period of accident and its seizure to conceal its identity. The involvement of vehicle in the accident has not been challenged either by owner or by the driver of the vehicle. Even they have not made any complaint that their vehicle has wrongly been involved in the accident. He would further submit that proper opportunity to lead evidence has been provided to insurance company and when they failed to produce their evidence, the Tribunal has forfeited their right to lead evidence. The order of forfeiting their right to lead evidence have not been challenged by the

¶62

7 / 15

¶63

insurance company. Thus, they cannot claim that no proper opportunity has been provided to them.

¶64

12. From the evidence of injured Gautam Singh who was one of the victim of the accident and examined in the case as AW-4, have clearly stated in his evidence that accident was occurred due to negligent act of the Tractor Driver and therefore the Driver of the Motorcycle Moharsai was not negligent in the accident to any extent. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased Moharsai was also contributory negligent by 40 percent in the accident. Thus, they prayed for entire compensation as assessed by the Tribunal by enhancing the amount on conventional head suitably.

¶65

13. In MAC No.1258 of 2017, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 7 have filed their cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation amount on the ground that the deceased Moharsai was not negligent in driving his motorcycle. It was rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor due to which the accident occurred. The said Tractor was just ahead of the motorcycle of the deceased on the road and without giving any indicator, the driver suddenly turned his Tractor by which the motorcycle dashed with the Tractor and accident occurred. In the said accident the Driver of Tractor is fully responsible for the accident and there is no negligence or contributory negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased Moharsai, yet the Tribunal has held deceased Moharsai also contributory negligent to the extent of 40 percent and has deducted 40 percent of compensation amount. Therefore, the entire amount of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal should be granted in favour of the claimants holding that driver of offending Tractor alone was negligent in driving the vehicle.

¶66

8 / 15

¶67

He would further submit that low amount has been awarded towards

¶68

conventional heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶69

14. Learned counsel for the respondent-Driver and Owner of the offending Tractor supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and percentage of their negligence and have rightly awarded compensation to the claimants which needs no interference.

¶70

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶71

16. So far as first argument raised by learned counsel for the insurance company that FIR was registered against unknown Tractor whereas on the date of accident Blue colour Trolley has been seized and further at the time of filing of charge sheet i.e. after about 70 days of accident, red colour Tractor and Trolley have been seized from the owner of the vehicle, is concerned, from perusal of FIR it appears that the FIR is registered against unknown Tractor, it reflects that there is no mentioned about colour of the Tractor. FIR has been lodged within one hour of the accident and there is no delay in lodging FIR. On the next day of accident, one blue colour Tractor Trolley loaded with soil has been seized from the spot in which there was no registration number affixed. The motorcycle was also seized at the same time along with Tractor Trolley from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. During investigation, the police has seized one red colour Tractor bearing registration No.CG-15-AE-3611 vide seizure memo Ex.P/8 and seizure of Tractor has been made along with the registration papers of Tractor as well as Trolley bearing No.CG-15-AE-3618. It is nowhere mentioned either in the FIR or in the seizure memo that on 07.06.2016

¶72

9 / 15

¶73

red colour Trolley was seized or on 16.08.2016 a blue colour Tractor was seized. There is no evidence on record that the accident was occurred with blue colour Tractor or red colour Trolley. Further, there is no evidence on record that Driver and Owner have challenged or have made any complaint to any higher police authority that their Tractor has wrongly been involved in the accident.

¶74

17. In case of Sunita and others Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486, Hon’ble

¶75

Supreme Court has held as under:

¶76

“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.

¶77

In the present case, we find that the Tribunal had followed a just approach in the matter of appreciation of the evidence/materials on record. Whereas, the High Court adopted a strict interpretation of the evidence on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt to record an adverse finding against the appellants and to reverse the well considered judgment of the Tribunal in a cryptic manner.

¶78

xxxxxxx

¶79

The Tribunal had justly accepted the appellants’ contention that the respondents did not challenge the propriety of the said FIR No. 247/2011 (Exh. 1) and charge sheet (Exh. 2) before any authority. The only defence raised by the respondents to this plea was that the said FIR No. 247/2011 was based on wrong facts and was filed in connivance between the appellants/complainants and the police, against which the respondents complained to the in charge of the police station and the District Superintendent of Police but to no avail. Apart from this bald assertion, no evidence was produced by the respondents before the Tribunal to prove this point. The filing of the FIR was followed by the filing of the chargesheet against respondent No.2 for offences under u/Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and Sections 134/187 of the Act, which, again, reinforces the allegations in the said FIR insofar as the

¶80

10 / 15

¶81

occurrence of the accident was concerned and the role of respondent No.2 in causing such accident. Be that as it may, the High Court has not even made a mention, let alone record a finding, of any impropriety against FIR 247/2011 (Exh. 1) or chargesheet (Exh. 2) or the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in that regard. Yet, the FIR and the Charge sheet has been found to be deficient by the High Court.

¶82

xxxxxxx

¶83

The Tribunal’s reliance upon FIR 247/2011 (Exh. 1) and chargesheet (Exh. 2) also cannot be faulted as these documents indicate the complicity of respondent No.2. The FIR and chargesheet, coupled with the other evidence on record, inarguably establishes the occurrence of the fatal accident and also point towards the negligence of the respondent No.2 in causing the said accident. Even if the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against respondent No.2 is unknown, the same would make no difference atleast for the purposes of deciding the claim petition under the Act. This Court in Mangla Ram (supra), noted that the nature of proof required to establish culpability under criminal law is far higher than the standard required under the law of torts to create liability.”

¶84

18. From the evidence available on record and also in view of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunita and Others (supra), the appellants could not able to prove that Tractor No.CG-15-AE-3611 and Trolley No.CG-15-AE-3618 was actually not involved in the accident, but the accident was occurred with some other vehicle.

¶85

19. So far as proper opportunity to lead evidence to the insurance company is concerned, it also appears from the order sheets of the Tribunal that on 28.04.2017 the claimants have closed their right to lead evidence and the case was fixed for recording of insurance companies evidence and on that day on the application made by the insurance company, the case was adjourned and fixed for 10.05.2017. On 10.05.2017 another application by the insurance company was filed for calling Investigating Officer and RTO person for recording their evidence and further date of 11.05.2017 was fixed for reply of the

¶86

11 / 15

¶87

applications. Further, on 11.05.2017 the application filed by the insurance company for calling of the Investigating Officer and RTO person was dismissed and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case that all the documents have already been produced by the parties and despite giving proper opportunity they have not led evidence, fixed the case for hearing argument of the parties.

¶88

20. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that proper opportunity to lead evidence to the insurance company has been provided, but instead of producing their evidence, they have moved their application for examination of the Investigating Officer and RTO Officer which has been rejected by the Tribunal. This court does not find any reason to remit the matter back for recording evidence of the Investigating Officer or the RTO Officer in support of the insurance company as the opportunity was provided to them but they could not produce their evidence. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, MAC No.1258 of 2017 filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed.

¶89

21. So far as the cross objection filed by the claimants is concerned, this court re-appreciates the evidence available on record.

¶90

22. The claimants have filed claim application with the pleading that the deceased Moharsai was a government Teacher and was earning Rs.34,316/- per month as salary. In support of their plea, the salary certificate Ex.P/19 issued by the Block Education Officer, Block Wadrafnagar, has been produced and proved the same by examining Ajay, AW-3 who is the Salary clerk posted at the office of Block

¶91

12 / 15

¶92

Education Officer, Wadrafnagar. In the said salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased was shown to be Rs.34,317/-. In absence of any rebuttal, the Tribunal has also considered the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.34,317/-. Further, the Tribunal considered that the deceased was 43 years of age on the date of accident and taken the future prospects of 30 percent for the age group of 40-50 years of deceased and thereby assessed the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.4,11,804/- and after inclusion of 30 percent future prospects, Rs.5,35,345/-. Further, after deducting income tax in the yearly income of the deceased under the head of income tax department for levy of the income, the Tribunal deducted Rs.32,069/- and assessed the yearly monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,03,276/-.

¶93

23. Thus, in the light of above and taking guidance from the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, 2017(16)SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @ Churu Ram & Ors. 2018(18) SCC 130 , this Court is recomputing the compensation as below-

¶94

Totalyearlyincome	5,03,276/-
After Deducting 1/5th towards personal expenditure, the yearly dependencycomes	4,02,621/-
Multiplier of 14 applied to assess total loss of dependency	4,02,621X14 =56,36,694/-
Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
Loss of estate	15,000/-
Spousal, filial and parental	2,80,000/-
consortium
Total	59,46,694/-

¶95

13 / 15

¶96

24. Further contention of the counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 7 are that, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was also contributory negligent and have deducted 40 percent of the compensation towards contributory negligence of the deceased.

¶97

25. From the evidence of Gautam Singh, AW-4 who was also injured and was there along with deceased at the time of accident in the same motorcycle, have stated in his evidence that on 06.06.2016 when he along with Moharsai and Shivsharan were returning to their village near village Pandri, the Tractor which was just ahead of them, suddenly turned his Tractor on right side without giving any indicator by which it dashed with the motorcycle and the accident occurred. He too have received injuries in the accident and Moharsai and Shivsharan both died on spot. Though he was being cross examined by the non applicants and in the cross examination he was put to question that deceased Moharsai was himself dashed the motorcycle with the Tractor Trolley, but the fact that the Tractor was just ahead of them and its driver turned the Tractor all of a sudden in its right side without giving any indication by which the accident occurred, have not been rebutted in his cross examination. Even no suggestion was given in his cross examination that the Tractor was not turn in its right side. Merely saying that the Tractor and Trolley was visible from the headlight of the motorcycle, it cannot be said that deceased Moharsai was negligent in driving his motorcycle. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No.1 that the deceased Moharsai was also negligent to the extent of 40 percent in the accident, is not founded by any cogent evidence.

¶98

26. One more aspect in the present case is that the owner and driver of

¶99

14 / 15

¶100

the offending vehicle Tractor have not examined themselves in the case to rebut the evidence of Gautam Singh, AW-4. Therefore, this court does not find any sufficient ground to uphold the findings of issue No.1 that the deceased Moharsai was also contributory negligent to the extent of 40 percent in the accident and thereby reduction of compensation amount to the tune of 40 percent from the total compensation is also not proper and this court held that the deceased Moharsai was not negligent in the accident contributory and the entire liability was upon the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor and Trolley No.CG-15-AE-3611 and the insurance company of the said Tractor and Trolley are liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants.

¶101

27. In the result, the cross objection filed by the claimants are partly allowed. The findings recorded by the Tribunal at paragraph 38 of its impugned award is hereby set aside. The insurance company is held liable to pay entire compensation to the claimants.

¶102

28. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants No.1 to 7 (in MAC No.1258 of 2017) is partly allowed.

¶103

29. The amount of compensation of Rs. 22,18,621/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 59,46,694/-. After deducting the amount of Rs. 22,18,621 /-, the claimants No.1 to 7 (in MAC No.1258 of 2017) are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 37,28,073 /-. The additional amount enhanced by this court shall carry interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation

¶104

15 / 15

¶105

enhanced by this court within a period of 90 days from today. On such deposit being made by the insurance company, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- each to claimant No.2-Sonmati, claimant No.3-Ku. Sita Kuwar, claimant No.4-Mukesh, claimant No.5-Ku. Sugandha and claimant No.7-Manmati) shall be deposited in the fixed deposit in their names for a further period of three years in any nationalized Bank. The remaining amount shall be paid to the claimants in equal proportion through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶106

30. Since MAC No.1262 of 2017 relates to death of deceased Shivsharan who also died in the same accident for which MAC No.1258 of 2017 is being decided as aforesaid in which also the liability was challenged by the insurance company on the same ground which has been taken in MAC No.1258 of 2017, therefore, the judgment passed in MAC No.1258 of 2017 is also applicable in the facts circumstances of present appeal i.e. MAC No.1262 of 2017 with respect to insurance company’s appeal. Thus, as held in MAC No.1258 of 2017, in MAC No.1262 of 2017 also it is held that the appellant/insurance company is held liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants.

¶107

31. With the aforesaid observations, both the appeals filed by the insurance company are dismissed, however, the cross objection filed by the claimants No.1 to 7 (in MAC No.1258 of 2017) is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶108

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶109

inder

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited v. Fulbas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited v. Fulbas

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

Vinod Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandesh Khandelwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kashi Ram Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kwality Traders, Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax