Dismissed

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited v. v. Laxmi

Chhattisgarh HC25 Jul 2024MAC/346/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against an accident claim award. The court rejected arguments regarding late FIR registration and insufficient income evidence, upholding the Tribunal's finding of liability and compensation quantum.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed; the impugned award of Rs. 31,64,344/- stands affirmed.

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:CGHC:27493

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 346 of 2017

¶5

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited 13, Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory For National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office B-1 Taha Complex Ring Road Priyadarshani Nagar Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

ersus

¶8

1 - V. Laxmi Wd/o V.Shankarrao, Aged About 28 Years

¶9

2 - V.Yashwani D/o V.Shankarrao, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Res. No. 1, V.Laxmi

¶10

3 - V.Subhradrama W/o V.Ramarao, Aged About 60 Years

¶11

All above R/o Quarter No. 1-17/4 Bobadi Peta, Post Cantonment District Vijaynagarm Andhra Pradesh, Presently Residing At- House Of Mohan Sahu Ward No.4, Shubhash Nagar Deepka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants

¶12

4 - Veera Swami S/o Venkatesh Kaiwart, Aged About 50 Years R/o Nandani Ward No.12, Bhilai Nagar Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At P.M.C.M. Mes. Gewra P.S. Deepka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver/ N.A.No.1

¶13

5 - Shri Harpal Singh S/o Guruwachan Singh, R/o M I G/ G/58 Sarda Vihar Korba, Chhattisgarh ................Owner/ N.A.No.2

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶16

For Appellant/Insurance Company : Shri BN Nande, Advocate For Respondents-1 to 3/claimants : Shri AL Singraul, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

26.07.2024

¶20

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the

¶21

Mac 346 of 2017

¶22

¶23

impugned award dated 14.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, CG (for short, ’Claims Tribunal’), in Motor Accident Claim Case- 96 of 2013, whereby, an amount of Rs.31,64,344/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants, and liability to pay the compensation is fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2013, at about 1 am in the night, deceased V Shankarrao was returning from his duty on his Motorcycle bearing No.CG12N-6937, and coming towards Hardibazar. At the relevant time, the offending Trailor bearing registration No.CG04JA4439 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver, NA1-Veera Swami, dashed the Motorcycle of the deceased from backside, due to which Shankarrao received grievous injuries, and has died on the spot. The offending vehicle is owned by NA2-Harpal Singh, and insured with NA3- National Insurance Company Limited, Kosabadi, Korba, CG. The offence has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, NA1, and charge-sheet was filed.

¶25

The claimants, who are wife, daughter, and mother of the deceased have filed claim case, pleading therein that the deceased was employed at Gevra Project, and was earning Rs.21, 429/- per month as salary, and the claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.43, 50,000/- on various heads.

¶26

Mac 346 of 2017

¶27

¶28

NA2, Owner of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement with the pleading that no accident was occurred from his vehicle. The Driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the offending vehicle. The said vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, NA3, and there is no any breach of Policy conditions. Therefore, liability to pay compensation, if any, is upon the Insurance Company.

¶29

NA3- Insurance Company has also filed its written statement pleading therein that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of Policy conditions, as its Driver-NA2 was not having any valid and effective driving license, and also not having its permit and fitness certificate. Deceased himself was negligent in the accident, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, and prayed for dismissal of the claim case.

¶30

On the basis of pleadings made by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has framed 8 issues and after recording evidence of the parties, and hearing them, passed an award of Rs.31,64,344/- as compensation in favour of claimants, and liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the Insurance Company, which is under challenge in the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

¶31

Learned counsel fo the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that no accident was occurred by the offending vehicle. The accident was occurred on 25.01.2013, whereas, the FIR has been registered on

¶32

Mac 346 of 2017

¶33

¶34

12.05.2013, therefore, involvement of the offending vehicle is highly suspicious. The offending vehicle was involved only to get compensation, by creating false documents therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He would further submit that the income of the deceased has also not been proved in accordance with law, and higher compensation has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would also submit that the deceased also contributory negligent in the accident, and therefore, the entire liability cannot be imposed upon the Insurance Company, and thus, the Insurance Company may be exonerated from payment of compensation, and the claim of the claimants may be dismissed.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants-1 to 3 have supported the impugned award and submitted that after due appreciation of evidence available on record, learned Claims Tribunal has reached to the conclusion, which is just and proper, and the award is in accordance with law, which needs no interference.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

¶37

The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the FIR has been lodged belatedly, and in order to get compensation from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, which has been falsely implicated in the accident by the claimants. True, it is, that the accident was occurred on 25.01.2013, and the FIR Ex.P3

¶38

Mac 346 of 2017

¶39

¶40

was registered on 12.05.2013 against the Driver of the offending vehicle, but from perusal of FIR Ex.P3, it appears that on 25.01.2013, Police Station Kusumunda, Hardibazar has received merg intimation, and after merg enquiry, the Police has found sufficient evidence that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. Then, they have registered FIR on 12.05.2013. Un-numbered FIR was registered at Police Station Hardibazar, which was sent to the jurisdictional Police Station Kusumunda, where the numbered FIR, Ex.P2 was registered against the Driver of the offending vehicle. During the investigation, offending vehicle was seized by the Police, its documents as well as the driving license, etc., of the Driver of the offending vehicle, have also been seized and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against NA1, Driver of the offending vehicle. Only on the ground that the accident was occurred on 25.01.2013 and the FIR has been registered on 12.05.2013, it cannot be said that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The accident was occurred in the night, and the offending vehicle was run away from the place of accident. It was traced out by the Police only after due process of investigation, and ultimately, chargesheet was filed against the Driver of the offending vehicle. The involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and the filing of the charge-sheet against NA1, Driver of the offending vehicle has not been challenged by him, nor any complaint was made to any higher authority, that the offending vehicle has wrongly been roped in the accident.

¶41

Mac 346 of 2017

¶42

¶43

In case of Sunita and others Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶44

“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.

¶45

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.

¶46

xxxxxxx

¶47

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

¶48

Mac 346 of 2017

¶49

¶50

the said FIR insofar as the 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.

¶51

26. xxxxxxx

¶52

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.”

¶53

Further, the claimants have examined AW2, Gorelal, who is claimed to be eyewitness to the accident. He stated in his evidence, that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle – Trailor No.CG04JA-4439. After the accident, the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. The persons, who were present there, had caught hold of its Driver, and took him to the Police Station.

¶54

In his cross-examination, he stated that he informed the brother of the deceased about the accident caused by the offending vehicle, and therefore, the Police recorded his statement about the accident. The

¶55

Mac 346 of 2017

¶56

¶57

Police recorded his statement after 2-3 months of the accident. Even if the evidence of this witness cannot be taken into consideration, the fact remains that after investigation, the Police has seized the vehicle and filed charge-sheet against the Driver of the offending vehicle for causing accident. Said action of the Police has not been challenged either by the Driver, or owner of the offending vehicle, and has not laid any evidence to rebut the evidence of claimants. Therefore, from the evidence led by the claimants, the involvement of the offending vehicle has duly been proved in the case.

¶58

The Insurance company has not led any evidence in support of its defence. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the argument advanced by the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶59

This court is further unable to accept the argument of the Insurance Company that excessive compensation is awarded to the claimants and there is no sufficient evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased.

¶60

Claimants have filed the salary certificate of the deceased Ex.P1, which has been proved by AW3 Priya Tarun Ghosh, Accountant at Sainik Mining Elite Services Limited, Gevra. He proved that the deceased was receiving Rs.21,429/- per month at the time of his death. In absence of any contrary evidence, the evidence led by AW3, and the salary certificate Ex.P1 cannot be discarded, and the learned Claims Tribunal

¶61

Mac 346 of 2017

¶62

¶63

has also considered the same as the proof of the monthly income of the deceased, and has awarded Rs.31,64,344/- as compensation.

¶64

Though the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased while assessing the compensation, but in absence of any cross-objection filed by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has granted sufficient compensation to the claimants on the basis of monthly income of the deceased on the date of accident. The Insurance Company could not make out any good ground to interfere in the appeal.

¶65

In the result, the appeal fails, and it is hereby dismissed.

¶66

No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶68

padma

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited v. v. Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited v. v. Laxmi

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

Naya Raipur Development Authority (Now Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran) Vs Gaukaran

Meena Bai Shrivas Vs Union of India

Sushil Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh @ Santu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girish Purohit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Kashyap Vs Rajendra Kumar Jagat