Partly allowed

Sushilchand Sahu v. Urmila Kewart

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2024MAC/498/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals in part regarding a motor accident claim. It held that a light motor vehicle licence covers transport vehicles of the same weight class, reinstating insurer liability, and enhanced the compensation for permanent disability and future medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company reinstated as liable; compensation enhanced by Rs. 30,000.

Sushilchand Sahu Vs Urmila Kewart — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 498 of 2016

¶5

Sushilchand Sahu S/o Bisahu Ram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Sekhwa, Police Station- Pendra, District (Revenue and Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Urmila Kewart W/o Beeranlal Kewart, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Sekhwa, Police Station- Pendra, District (Revenue and Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Tahsil and District (Revenue and Civil) Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

MAC No. 675 of 2016

¶12

Urmila Kewart S/o Biranlal Kewart, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sekhwa, P.S. and Tahsil- Pendra, Revenue and Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

Sushil Chand Sahu S/o Bisahu Ram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Sekhwa, P.S. and Tahsil- Pendra, Revenue and Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company, Wadijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (wrongly mentioned as District- Bilaspur in the award).

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

MAC No.498 of 2016

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶20

MAC No.675 of 2016

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabha Sharma, Advocate

¶22

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶24

Judgment on Board

¶25

12.06.2024

¶26

1. As both the appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) arise out of the award dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.H 04 of 2015, involving the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶27

2. MAC No.498 of 2016 has been filed by the driver-cumowner of the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration No.MP18-T-2664 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) on the ground that insurance company was exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

¶28

3. MAC No.675 of 2016 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶29

4. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, on 05.12.2014, Urmila Kewart (claimant), was going to Danikundi market on the offending vehicle to sell pulses. At about 11.30 AM, driver-cum-registered owner of offending vehicle, namely Sushil Chand Sahu, while driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, turned turtle the same, due to which, claimant

¶30

¶31

along with other persons sitting over the offending vehicle fell down and suffered injuries over head, face and hand as well as 120 kgs. of pulses kept in four sacks got scattered on the road and destroyed. She underwent treatment and due to fracture over wrist, she suffered permanent disablity. Thereafter, matter was reported to the Police Station Marwahi and Crime No.144 of 2014 was registered against driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

¶32

5. After recovery from injuries, claimant Urmila Kewart filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking total compensation of Rs.10,80,000/against driver-cumregistered owner as well as insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶33

6. After appreciating the evidence available on record as well as after hearing learned counsel for the parties as also considering the pleadings made in the claim petition, learned Claims Tribunal considered that Urmila Kewart suffered grievous injury due to fracture over her wrist. Learned Claims Tribunal has determined her monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and opined that due to permanent disability, her earning capacity was reduced to 15%. As

¶34

¶35

such, her earning capacity was assessed as Rs.450/- per month i.e. Rs.5,400/- per annum. Looking to the age of claimant, multiplier of 16 was applied and loss of future income due to permanent disability was determined as Rs.86,400/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards physical and mental agony, Rs.2,000/towards attendant and Rs.2,000/- towards special diet, as such, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,00,400/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Learned Claims Tribunal further considered that Sushil Chand Sahu was having licence to drive “Motorcycle with Gear and Light Motor Vehicle” and the offending vehicle was a “Transport Vehicle”, as such, Sushil Chand Sahu was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and thereby terms and conditions of insurance policy had been violated. Therefore, Sushil Chand Sahu (driver-cumowner of offending vehicle) was held responsible to pay the amount of compensation and insurance company was exonerated to satisfy its liability.

¶36

MAC No.498 of 2016

¶37

7. First of all, I shall deal with the appeal filed by the drivercum-owner of the offending vehicle.

¶38

¶39

8. Learned counsel for the registered owner of offending vehicle submits that Sushil Chand Sahu was having driving licence to drive “Light Motor Vehicle” and total unladen weight of offending vehicle was only 990 kgs. He further submits that in view of Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, offending vehicle being less than 7500 kgs in weight comes under the category of “Light Motor Vehicle”, for which, driver is having the driving licence, therefore, conclusion of Claims Tribunal that driver did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle is erroneous. It is contented that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident, there was violation of breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the said finding is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal be allowed and insurance company should be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. Reliance has been placed in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 to buttress his submissions.

¶40

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has justified in recording a finding that there was breach of conditions of

¶41

¶42

insurance policy due to driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and rightly exonerated the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation, which needs no interference.

¶43

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case minutely.

¶44

11. Sajeet Kumar Rai, Legal Assistant has been examined on behalf of insurance company, who in his evidence has stated that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. Sushil Chand Sahu has given his statement as driver, in which, he has produced registration certificate of offending vehicle (Ex.D/2), his driving licence (Ex.D/3) and insurance policy (Ex.D/4). Vijay Tiwari, Assistant Grade-II, Licence Branch of RTO, Bilaspur has also examined on behalf of insurance company, who has stated in his evidence that driving licence number S/7593/96 was issued in the name of driver of offending vehicle, i.e. Sushil Chand Sahu, which was produced as Ex.D/1, according to which, driving licence was issued for “MCWG and LMV (Non-Transport)”.

¶45

12. The issue with respect to persons having a licence authorizing to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the commercial vehicle, but of the

¶46

¶47

same category, has been considered by the Hon'ble

¶48

Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and held as under :

¶49

“59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was preamended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-032001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.

¶50

Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

¶51

60.1. ‘'Light motor vehicle'’ as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight

¶52

¶53

prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994.

¶54

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-03-2001 in the form.

¶55

60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-111994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e), “medium passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10(2) (f), “heavy goods vehicle” in Section 10(2) (g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10(2)(h), with expression “transport vehicle” as substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2) (d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

¶56

60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were

¶57

¶58

substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”

¶59

13. Perusal of copy of certificate of registration (Ex.D/2-C) would show that class of vehicle has been shown as “ORD TAXI”, type of Body as “Passenger” and unladen weight as “990 kgs. Looking to the unladen weight, it is apparent that weight of offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs., which comes under the category of “Light Motor Vehicle” as defined under Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, which reads as under :

¶60

“ 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶61

x x xx xx

¶62

(21) “Light Motor Vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms;”

¶63

14. Perusal of copy of driving licence (Ex.D/3) would show that driver Sushil Chand Sahu was possessing licence having its validity from 22.02.1996 to 21.02.2016. It also shows that authorization of the licence holder is to drive “Motorcycle

¶64

¶65

with Gear and Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport)”.

¶66

15. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, it is quite vivid that registered owner Sushil Chand Sahu has produced registration certificate of offending vehicle as Ex.D/2, in which, unladen weight of offending vehicle is shown as “990 kgs.” In such a situation, I find that on the date of accident, Sushil Chand Sahu was having valid and effective driving licence to drive offending vehicle and there was no violation of breach of policy conditions.

¶67

16. In view of above, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was breach of policy conditions, is not sustainable and insurance company is found to be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation finding that there was no breach of violation of conditions of insurance policy.

¶68

MAC No.675 of 2016

¶69

17. Now, I shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶70

18. Learned counsel for the claimant Urmila Kewart submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding suitable amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that claimant is a working woman and her earning capacity has been grossly affected

¶71

¶72

due to permanent disability suffered over her wrist. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards future medical expenses. It is further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation in an injury case, which needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶73

19. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the registered owner and insurance company of offending vehicle, while supporting the impugned award, submit that Urmila Kewart has not produced any receipt for medical expenses, as such, by assessing 15% reduction in her earning capacity, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just amount of compensation, which requires no interference.

¶74

20. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully.

¶75

21. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶76

22. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of claimant Urmila Kewart as Rs.3,000/- per month while working as labourer. Dr. S.S. Bhatia has been examined

¶77

¶78

before the Claims Tribunal, who in his evidence has stated that he has issued disability certificate (Ex.P/1) in favour of Urmila Kevard determining 42% permanent disability. In cross-examination, he has stated that fingers of right hand of Urmila Kewart were working. Claims Tribunal has also observed during the evidence of Urmila as to what was the injury on her right hand and it was found that wrist of right hand was clearly broken and her wrist and palm were bent downwards, due to which, her palm was deformed instead of being normal.

¶79

23. In such a situation, while no amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards future treatment and considering the fact that Urmila Kewart is a wage earning woman, in which, participation of hands are duly required, it is found appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.10,000/towards future medical expenses, i.e. in total Rs.30,000/-.

¶80

24. Now, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,30,400/- instead Rs.1,00,400/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.

¶81

25. In the result :-

¶82

(i) MAC No.498 of 2016 filed by the driver-cumregistered owner of the offending vehicle is allowed

¶83

¶84

in part . The insurance company and driver-cumregistered owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the amount of compensation as this Court finds that on the date of accident, there was no breach of policy conditions.

¶85

(ii) MAC No.675 of 2016 filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation is allowed in part and the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.30,000/- in addition to what are already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions as imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶86

26. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in these appeals as against the award made by the learned Claims Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a coordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant reside.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶89

Yogesh

Sushilchand Sahu v. Urmila Kewart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushilchand Sahu v. Urmila Kewart

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

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. Vs Sant Kumar Mahilange and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bhagwati Paikra

Nirmal Kumar Dhruw Vs Smt. Alarmelmangai D.

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh