Insurance Company appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting compensation to claimants in a motor accident case. The High Court upheld the award, rejecting the insurer's challenge regarding income assessment and liability fastening.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award of Rs. 37,21,326/- with interest affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 10
2024:CGHC:48177
NAFR
Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2024.12.11 14:46:14 +0530
MAC No. 328 of 2016
Versus
…. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Advocate 2/Claimants on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
2 / 10
Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,
Judgment on Board
06/12/2024
3 / 10
4 / 10
offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, but it was insured in the name of S.W. Sarvate/non-applicant No.3 and the registered owner was Ajay Dubey/non-applicant No.2.
With regard to the assessment of the compensation, he would submit that the alleged accident occurred on 18.11.2009 and as per the statement of Madhup Chandrashekhar (AW-01), Superintendent, Bernhard Schulte Ship-management, Mumbai, the deceased – Santosh Kumar Yadav was unemployed on the date of accident, as the agreement between the said Ship-management and the deceased already came to end, as the deceased was terminated from service on 10.06.2009. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could have assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased looking to his employment. He further submits that deceased used to work for only six months and on other six months, he used to remain on leave, therefore, his income would have been calculated for only six months and not 12 months. This apart, the overtime (OT) has wrongly been added in the income of the deceased. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award and is liable to be exonerated. In alternative, he submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, order of pay and recover may be passed. In support, he relied upon the judgments in the matters of Surendra Kumar Arora and Another Vs. Manoj Bisla (Dr.) and Others reported in 2012 (3) TAC 353 (SC), Lachoo Ram and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 13 SCC 264, Anil and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others reported in 2018 ACJ 729, Oriental
5 / 10
Insurance Company Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors. r eported in 2007 (13) SCC 476 and Rikhi Ram and Another Vs. Sukhrania and Others reported in 2003 ACJ 534.
6 / 10
accident, deceased was admitted in Apollo BSR Hospital, Bhilai and during the treatment, he died on 29.11.2009. This witness has produced the medical documents and bills (Ex.P-33 to Ex.P-85) showing the amount incurred during treatment of his son. He further stated that at the time of accident, he was 26 years of age and he used to earn 705 US dollar by working as ordinary seaman in Chettinad Ship Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.P-133) /Bernhard Ship Management Company. In this regard, service agreement (Ex.P-01) and wage slips of the deceased (Ex.P-06 to Ex.P-15) of different months have been produced on record to substantiate the fact.
7 / 10
Thakur has also not examined as a witness to unfold the accident. Therefore, considering the evidence of above witness and documents submitted by the claimants, the learned Claims tribunal has rightly held that on 18.11.2009, the motorcycle being driven by the deceased was dashed by non-applicant No.1 on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle causing the death of deceased and thus, answered the issue No.1 in affirmative.
8 / 10
deceased Santosh Yadav for the entire month in May 2009, of which his basic salary is 394 US dollars and overtime 386.80 US dollars, totalling 780.80 US dollars, which the deceased was earning while he was alive. In the said salary, 145.20 US dollars was also shown to be given for the previous month. While marking the exhibits on the service contract documents of deceased Santosh Kumar, Ex.P.-01 and Ex.P.02, objection was raised by non-applicant No.4/insurance company that the said documents are not executed on stamp paper and no seal is affixed on them for the purpose of assessing the income and work done by the deceased as it would be relevant therefor.
9 / 10
documents, it is seen that seal of the company has been shown in Ex.P.07 and Ex.P.-11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which shows that all the documents are related to the year 2009 and Santosh Yadav has been paid in US dollars during his service. Witness Madhup Chandrashekhar (AW-01) has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that according to Ex.P.-8, in May 2009, Santosh Yadav was given a total salary of 394 US dollars and 386.80 US dollars for overtime, totaling 780.80 US dollars. This fact remained unrebbuted during cross-examination. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased Santosh Yadav was working as an ordinary seaman in Bernard Schulte Ship Management before his death as per the contract executed between them and he had the capacity to earn income as mentioned above and had he been alive, he would have definitely earned income as per his capacity and calibre.
10 / 10
Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge
Prakash
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation
Whether the assessment of the deceased's income as an Ordinary Seaman including overtime was legally sustainable
Whether the appellant insurance company was rightly fastened with liability to pay the awarded compensation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surendra Kumar Arora and Another v. Manoj BislaDistinguished¶28
Surendra Kumar Arora and Another Vs. Manoj Bisla reported in 2012 (3) TAC 353 (SC)
Lachoo Ram and Others v. Himachal Road Transport CorporationDistinguished¶28
Lachoo Ram and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 13 SCC 264 · Who else cites this
Anil and Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Distinguished¶28
Anil and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others reported in 2018 ACJ 729
Oriental Insurance Company v. Premlata ShuklaDistinguished¶28
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors. reported in 2007 (13) SCC 476 · Who else cites this
Rikhi Ram and Another v. SukhraniaDistinguished¶28
Rikhi Ram and Another Vs. Sukhrania and Others reported in 2003 ACJ 534
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay SethiRelied on¶47
National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationRelied on¶47
Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
New India Insurance Company Limited
Nohar Prasad Yadav
Ku. Anita Yadav
Puran Singh Thakur
Ajay Dubey
S.W. Sarvate
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
