Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nand Kumar Verma

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:35817

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 967 of 2017

¶6

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager/ Office Incharge, 4^th Floor, Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer of Vehicle Tanker Bearing No. C.G.07 L.P. 9574, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Nand Kumar Verma S/o Pachkaud Verma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Champa, P.S. Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Kumari Manju Verma D/o Nand Kumar Verma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Champa, P.S. Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Ku. Ratna Verma D/o Nand Kumar Verma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Champa, P.S. Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Tek Ram Sahu @ Takeshwar Lal Sahu, S/o Chhote Lal Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Rajeev Nagar, In Front of Sulabh, Thana City Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver of Vehicle Tanker Bearing No. C.G.07 L.P. 9574, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Kamal Kumar S/o Hari Narayan, R/o Plot No. 262, Street No.5, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Another Address Plot No. 121, H.I.G., Hathkhoj, Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner of Vehicle Tanker Bearing No. C.G.07 L.P. 9574

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

MAC No. 1153 of 2017

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN

¶17

2

¶18

1 - Nand Kumar Verma S/o Pachkaud Verma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Champa, Police Station Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Now R/o Linepara Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - Kumari Manju Verma D/o Nandkumar Verma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Champa, Police Station Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Now R/o Linepara Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶20

3 - Ku. Ratna Verma D/o Nandkumar Verma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Champa, Police Station Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Now R/o Linepara Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Appellants

¶22

versus

¶23

1 - Tek Ram Sahu @ Takeshwar Lal Sahu S/o Chhote Lal Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Rajeev Nagar, In Front of Sulabh, Thana City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.07 L P 9574, Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - Kamal Kumar S/o Hari Narayan, Plot No. 262, Street No. 5, Shanti Nagar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Additional Address Plot No. 121, H I G Hathkhoj, Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.07 L P 9574

¶25

3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager/ Office in Incharge, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor Maruti Heights, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.07 L P 9574

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

For Appellant in MAC No.967/2017 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate. and for Respondent No.3 in MAC No.1153/2017

¶28

For Claimants (Appellants in MAC : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate. No.1153/2017 and Respondents No.1 to 3 in MAC No.967/2017)

¶29

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶30

Judgment on Board

¶31

08-07-2024

¶32

3

¶33

These two appeals are arising out of the same accident and decided by a single award, therefore, both these appeals are being heard and decided together.

¶34

MAC No.967/2017 has been filed by the insurance company against their liability to pay compensation, whereas, MAC No.1153/2017 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶35

These appeals have been filed against the award dated 06-04-2017 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Claims Tribunal), Raipur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.145/2012 whereby amount of Rs.10,03,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal on account of death of deceased Ku. Ranjana Verma.

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that, on 06-07-2012 at about 03:00 p.m. when deceased Ku. Ranjana Verma was going along with Mukesh Sahu on his motorcycle to Dharsiwa from Raipur, on the way at Raipur Bilaspur road near Vyas Talab, offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No. CG 07LP9574 which was rashly and negligently driven by non-applicant No.1 Tekram Sahu, owned by non-applicant No.2 Kamal Kumar and insured by non-applicant No.3 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., dashed the motorcycle from its backside by which deceased Ku. Ranjana Verma received grievous injuries. She was immediately taken to Mekahara hospital, Raipur,from where she was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Mowa, Raipur, but due to the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident she died on 24-07-2021 during treatment. The offence has been registered against non-applicant No.1 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him.

¶37

The claimants who are father and unmarried sisters of deceased Ku. Ranjana Verma have filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation with pleading that the deceased was aged about 20 years on the date of accident. She was meritorious student

¶38

4

¶39

and having bright future. She was preparing for pre-medical test examination. She was having extra ordinary curricular and educational qualification upto Class 12. She would have employed to the higher administrative post and would have earn Rs.20,000/- per month. By the death of the deceased the family of the claimants are put in loss monetary as well as mentally, therefore, they claim total Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation on various heads.

¶40

Non-applicant No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement and denied the claim of the claimants with the pleading that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle carefully and there is no negligence on his part. It is further pleaded in the written statement that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company and therefore liability to pay compensation, if any, is upon the insurance company.

¶41

Non-applicant No.3, the insurance company has also filed its written statement and denied the pleading of the claimants and have pleaded that on the date of accident, the non-applicant No.1 was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness certificate and further pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. It is further pleaded that since there is violation of policy condition, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

¶42

From the pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal has framed 7 issues and after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them passed the award of Rs.10,03,000/- in favour of the claimants and liability to pay compensation is imposed upon the non-applicant No.1 and 2, but has directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount

¶43

5

¶44

of compensation and liberty was given to the insurance company to recover the same from non-applicants No.2, i.e., owner of the vehicle.

¶45

MAC No.967/2017

¶46

Learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy condition. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence and despite having given written notice to the owner of the vehicle, the licence of the driver/non-applicant No.1 has not been produced and thus, the driver was not holding any valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Had the driver been having valid and effective driving licence, he would have produced the same before the Claims Tribunal, but he did not produce the same. He would also submit that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was not having any valid permit and thereby there is violation of policy condition and the insurance company may be absolved from payment of compensation instead of the order to pay first and may recover from the owner of the vehicle.

¶47

He would further submit that though the claimants have also filed their appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount, but looking to the age of the deceased and the fact that she was student, the learned Claims Tribunal has already granted sufficient amount by holding her yearly income as Rs.1,20,000/- and in view of the fact that her future is not decided, the award amount is on higher side. Further, the amount awarded towards conventional head are also on the higher side and there is no scope for enhancement of any compensation amount.

¶48

MAC No.1153/2017

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellants in claimants appeal, MAC No.1153/2017 opposes the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in insurance company’s appeal and has submitted that the deceased was having bright future and having meritorious educational record and extra

¶50

6

¶51

curricular activities which fortifies her excellence, considering the age and her past educational qualification the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the yearly income of the deceased and has awarded less amount towards compensation. The future prospect has also not been awarded to the claimants. She would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has taken multiplier of 17, whereas, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. She would also submit that the amount of consortium has not been awarded to the claimants and less amount has been awarded towards compensation which is liable to be enhanced suitably.

¶52

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.

¶53

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in insurance company’s appeal is concerned, witness No.1 of witnesses of non-applicant No.3 Hemant Jaiswal, who is Assistant Grade-III at RTO, Durg, has stated in his deposition that he is posted as Assistant Grade-III at the Additional RTO Durg from 24-10-2011. He brought attested copies of registration book and fitness of vehicle No. CG07LP 9574 and attested copies of driving licence No.CG 07/1999/0004358. The attested copy of RTO is Ex.-D/1. Fee detail of fitness is Ex.-D/2. Fitness certificate Ex.-D/3 and attested copy of licence is Ex.-D/4. As per the office record, on 06-07-2012 the registration, fitness and driving licence of the aforesaid vehicle was valid and effective. The aforesaid licence was issued for the period of 02-01-2012 to 01-01-2015 to drive the transport vehicle and issued in favour of Tikeshwar Lal Sahu. He has not brought the previous register mentioned in Ex.-D/4 with respect to licence No.T/4358/Durg. He also brought official record of temporary permit issued to the said vehicle No. CG 07LP 9574 and according to the official record on 0607-2012, the vehicle No. CG 07LP9574 was not having any valid permit. In cross-examination he stated that he has not brought the permanent permit register of the RTO office and since his office has only issued the temporary

¶54

7

¶55

permit to the vehicles and therefore, he has brought the temporary permit register with him.

¶56

Witness No.2 of non-applicant No.3, insurance company, namely, Punit Rathor who is Law Officer of the insurance company has stated in his evidence that the vehicle No. CG07LP9574 was insured with the insurance company and the policy was issued to the said vehicle as goods carrying commercial vehicle for the period of 28-03-2012 to 27-03-2013 and the policy is Ex.-D/5. The vehicle was not having any permit on the date of accident. They have issued notice to non-applicant No.1 to submit his licence through the notice Ex.-D/6 and notice to non-applicant No.2 is Ex.-D/11. Its postal receipts and acknowledgments are Ex.-D/7, D/8 and D/12. The said notice was unserved and returned back which is Ex.-D/13 and D/14. Despite having sent notice to the non-applicants No.1 and 2 they have not submitted licence of the driver and permit of the vehicle to the insurance company. In the case also non-applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 were asked to submit the aforesaid documents, but they have not submitted the same. Since the vehicle was not having any permit on the date of accident and the driver was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, the condition of the insurance policy was violated and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. In cross-examination the evidence of this witness that the driver was not having any valid driving licence and the vehicle was not having any permit could not be rebutted.

¶57

After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No.4 has also come to the conclusion that there is violation of policy condition.

¶58

Though, the learned Claims Tribunal has found that there is violation of policy condition, but there is no challenge of the said finding by the non-applicant No.1 and 2 as there is no information about the same.

¶59

The learned Claims Tribunal after considering the judgment passed by the

¶60

8

¶61

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and the judgment of Delhi High Court Santosh Chabra and Others Vs. Abhishek Gureja, 2013 (4) ACC 814 (Del.) 21 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri and others decided on 21-09-2012 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in MAC. App. 1050/2012 has directed the insurance company to pay the compensation first to the claimants and liberty was given to the insurance company to recover the same form non-applicant No.2 as per law under the pay and recover principle.

¶62

In view of the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company under the terms and conditions of the policy, but the said terms and conditions of the policy are violated. But, in view of the contractual liability between the owner and the insurance company, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation first and then he may recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as per law. Further, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd ., 2018 (7) SCC 558, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly directed to pay the compensation first by the insurance company and may recover the same from owner of the vehicle and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in passing the order about pay and recover. Therefore, there is no substance found in the appeal filed by the insurance company and the same (MAC No.967/2017) is hereby dismissed.

¶63

So far as the enhancement of compensation amount in the appeal filed by the claimants (MAC No.1153/2017) is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the totality of the facts, certificates of educational qualification and her extra curricular activities, Ex.-P/56 to Ex.-P/62, considered the future income of the deceased would be Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. The learned Claims Tribunal has also found that deceased Ku. Ranjana Verma was aged

¶64

9

¶65

about 16 years on the date of accident, as per her date of birth shown in the document Ex.-P/61. Thus, keeping in view all the facts that the deceased was 16 years of age, she was a student having meritorious educational qualification and extra curricular activities, Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum is assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal as the notional income which has been sufficiently considered by the learned Claims Tribunal and there is no error on it.

¶66

Keeping in view the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, 2017(16) SCC 680, Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors, 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Others, 2018(18) SCC 130, this court is recomputing the compensation as below-

¶67

Yearlyincome of deceased		1,20,000/-
Personal expenditure(50%)		60,000/-
Multiplier of 18 applied assess total loss dependency	to of	10,80,000/-
Parental consortium to claim No.1	ant	40,000/-
Medical expenses incurred treatment	on	1,58,000/-
Funeral expenses		15,000/-
Loss of estate		15,000/-
Total compensation		13,08,000/-

¶68

For the forgoing reason, the appeal filed by the claimants MAC No.1153/2017 is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,03,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,08,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,03,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.03,05,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶69

10

¶70

The insurance company shall deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On being so deposited the amount of compensation by the insurance company the same shall be paid to the claimants through account payee cheque/bank transaction.

¶71

The appeal filed by the insurance company (MAC No.967/2017) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants (MAC No.1153/2017) is partly allowed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶74

Aadil

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Nand Kumar Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Nand Kumar Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Abid Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunder Lal @ Pappu @ Vishal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Gunadi Bai and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durbal Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dorilal and Oth. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.