Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Roopchand Sahu

1 - Roopchand Sahu S/o Late Shri Mukuram Sahu, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Arun Kumar Sahu W/o Shri Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - Satanand Sahu S/o Shri Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

5 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

6 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sondongri, Near Mahaveer Nagar Chowk, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2

¶19

7 - Budharu Chouhan S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Chauhan, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sondongri, P.O. Tendua, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

8 - Narmada Prasad Pandariya S/o Late Shri Mangal Prasad Pandariya, R/o House No. I-39, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

--- Respondents

¶22

MAC No. 138 of 2017

¶23

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd Chawla Complex, 1st Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

--- Appellant

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - Ripusudan Sahu S/o Shri Nathuwaram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tekari, Thana Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

2 - Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Shri Ripusudan Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tekari, Thana Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

3 - Budharu Chouhan S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Chauhan, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sondongri, P.O. Tendua, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

4 - Narmada Prasad Pandariya S/o Late Shri Mangal Prasad Pandariya, R/o House No. I-39, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

	... Respondents
(Cause-title taken	from Case Information System)
For Appellant	: Mr. SurajPatel, Advocate
For Respondents	: None, though served

¶31

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Judgment

¶32

1 Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶33

3

¶34

2 MAC No.139/2017 is directed against the award dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.135/2013, whereby compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, has been awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Shyam Bai and liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶35

3 MAC No.139/2017 is directed against the award dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.135/2013, whereby compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, has been awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Shyam Bai and liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶36

4 MAC No.138/2017 is directed against the award dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.136/2013, whereby compensation of Rs.6,24,961/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its

¶37

4

¶38

realization, has been awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Ku. Pooja Sahu and liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶39

5 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.04.2013, Shyam Bai, Ku. Pooja Sahu were travelling along with other villagers in a Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/TA/0316 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) from Village Kandul to Sondongri, Raipur. When they reached near Tatibandh Sarona Over Bridge, the driver of the offending vehicle driving the vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided with an unknown truck, causing the vehicle to overturn. As a result, Shyam Bai and Kumari Pooja sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.

¶40

6 The claimants in MAC No.139/2017 being husband and children of deceased Shyam Bai filed a Claim Case No.135/2013 seeking compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- with interest at 18% per annum.

¶41

7 The claimants in MAC No.138/2017 being parents of deceased Ku. Pooja filed a Claim Case No.136/2013 seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum.

¶42

8 Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) denied the allegations, asserting that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of an unknown truck, and therefore, it was a hit-and-run case for which they were not liable. They further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly

¶43

5

¶44

insured with the Insurance Company and the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence.

¶45

9 Appellant/non-applicant No. 3, the insurance company, refuted the claim, contending that the criminal records reveal the accident was attributed to an unknown vehicle, negating any negligence on the part of the insured vehicle. It was further alleged that the driver did not possess a valid licence, and the vehicle was being operated in violation of the permit and insurance conditions, as it was found 16 km outside its permitted route. The insurer also argued that the owner and police failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence, the insurance company was not liable for compensation.

¶46

10 Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- in Claim Case No.135/2013 and Rs.6,24,961/- in Claim Case No.136/2013 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶47

11 Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in both the appeals submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in directing the appellant to make payment of the

¶48

6

¶49

compensation amount as computed. It is submitted that the impugned award suffers from serious irregularities and illegalities, as the Claims Tribunal has completely failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the material facts brought on record by the appellant regarding the claim raised by the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts while assessing the compensation and fastening the liability upon the appellant company. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that there was clear negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as evident from the testimony of AW-2, Satanand Sahu, who categorically stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road and hit an unknown truck, due to which the vehicle overturned. This clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the negligent and wrongful act of the driver of the offending vehicle, which also amounted to a breach of policy conditions. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation.

¶50

12 It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has completely overlooked the deposition of NAW-2, Rajesh Bhargav, RTO official, who clearly stated that the permit of the offending vehicle was issued only up to the limits of Raipur Nagar Nigam and was valid temporarily from 19.10.2012 to 18.02.2013. Thus, on the date of the accident i.e., 24.04.2013, the offending vehicle was

¶51

7

¶52

being plied without a valid and effective permit, which constitutes a violation of the policy conditions. Consequently, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. It is also urged that the owner of the offending vehicle failed to provide any information to the appellant company regarding the accident as mandated under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which again amounts to breach of statutory obligations and policy terms.

¶53

13 Learned counsel further submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in computing the compensation by taking the annual income of the deceased on a much higher side, despite there being no documentary or oral evidence produced by the claimants to prove the same. The assessment of income by the Claims Tribunal is purely arbitrary and without legal foundation. Lastly, it is argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has completely disregarded the scheme of the Act and the provisions contained in the Second Schedule applicable to claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the Second Schedule, the compensation payable under conventional heads has been specifically fixed at Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, in complete violation of the statutory schedule, has awarded an exorbitant amount of Rs.90,000/- under the conventional heads, which is contrary to law and in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the

¶54

8

¶55

learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, and unsustainable, and accordingly deserves to be set aside.

¶56

14 Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing, though earlier the respondents had duly entered appearance and were represented before the Court.

¶57

15 I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶58

16 The Claims Tribunal, while deciding the issues No. 2 to 4, has observed that the statement of non-applicant witness Rajesh Bhargava (NAW-1), an official from the RTO Raipur, revealed that the permit for the offending vehicle owned by non-applicant No. 2, was issued for operation within a radius of 16 km outside the Raipur Municipal Corporation limits and was valid for a temporary period of four months from 19.10.2012 to 18.02.2013. The accident in question occurred on 24.04.2013, after the expiry of the said permit. However, during cross-examination, the witness admitted that he could not state whether any subsequent permit was obtained after 18.02.2013 and further acknowledged that the division of Raipur into city and rural areas for operational purposes was an administrative arrangement not governed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal further noted the evidence of Sajit Kumar Roy (NAW-2), an official of the insurance company, who deposed that the vehicle in question was insured

¶59

9

¶60

under a comprehensive policy valid from 05.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 and that, as per the terms of the policy, the insurer would not be liable to pay compensation if the vehicle was driven without a valid and effective permit, driving licence, or fitness certificate. He asserted that the accident occurred while the vehicle was being plied on a route beyond the scope of its permit and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable.

¶61

17 However, in his cross-examination, NAW-2 admitted that he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his assertions regarding the validity of the permit, driving licence, or fitness certificate, nor had any investigation report or certified document from the RTO been placed on record to substantiate the alleged breach of policy conditions.

¶62

18 Relying upon the property seizure memo (Ex.P-8) filed by the claimants, which showed that the offending vehicle’s RC book, fitness certificate, permit, and insurance documents had been seized by the Amanaka Police Station, and that the driver’s licence was also seized from non-applicant No. 1, the Claims Tribunal found that no authentic or reliable evidence was adduced to establish that the accident occurred while the offending vehicle was being plied on a route other than the one specified in the permit. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal held that, at the time of the accident, the driver was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence and permit to operate the vehicle.

¶63

10

¶64

19 Therefore, there was no breach of the policy conditions and as such, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, which does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶65

20 It is pertinent to mention that though the claimants have neither appeared before this Court nor filed any cross-objection/crossappeal seeking enhancement, looking to the benevolent nature of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even in absence of cross-objection, the Court is empowered to enhance the compensation if the award is found to be inadequate.

¶66

21 Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶67

“2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants.

¶68

3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach

¶69

11

¶70

and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.”

¶71

22 On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶72

23 From perusal of the impugned award, it is found that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation towards loss of consortium and other conventional heads in MAC No.139/2017.

¶73

24 The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position,

¶74

12

¶75

the claimants in MAC No.139/2017 are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and the claimants in MAC No.138/2017 are entitled to get a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants in both the appeals are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076.

¶76

25 On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants in MAC

¶77

No.139/2017 entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶78

Sl. No.	Head	Calculation	Awarded amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal	Rs.2,12,000/-
2.	Towards loss of estate	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
3.	Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.2,88,000/-

¶79

13

¶80

4.	Funeral Expenses	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
		Total Compensation Awarded	Rs.5,36,000/-

¶81

26 In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,36,000/- . After deducting Rs.3,02,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,34,000/- .

¶82

27 As such, the claimants in MAC No.139/2017 shall be entitled to Rs.2,34,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

¶83

28 Now, we shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants in MAC No.138/2017.

¶84

29 MAC No.138/2017 arises out of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.136/2013, wherein the unfortunate death of a minor girl aged about 13 years occurred in a motor vehicular accident. Upon due consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,24,961/- in favour of the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased minor child, under various permissible heads.

¶85

14

¶86

30 Having examined the impugned award as well as the grounds urged in appeal, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation keeping in view the age of the deceased, the notional income applicable to a non-earning minor, and the conventional heads of compensation. The amount so awarded appears to be just, fair, and reasonable, requiring no further enhancement.

¶87

31 Since, it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, hence, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants in MAC No.139/2017 as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶88

32 Accordingly, while upholding the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company being MAC Nos.139/2017 and 138/2017 stands dismissed , subject to the aforesaid modification with regard to enhancement of compensation in MAC No.139/2017.

¶89

33 Since none has appeared on behalf of the claimants, in spite of due notice, it is directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants in MAC No.139/2017 at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants in MAC No.139/2017 as

¶90

15

¶91

well as to the concerned DLSA, Raipur, Chhattisgarh with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal.

¶92

34 The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.

¶93

Sd/-

¶94

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶95

Yogesh

¶96

The date when the	The date when the	The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved	judgment is	uploaded on the website
	pronounced
		Operative Full
31.10.2025	19.11.2025	--- 19.11.2025

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roopchand Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roopchand Sahu

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

Lokesh Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrakala Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yamuna Bai Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pitambar Bagh Vs District Judge, Raipur

Pratipal Garhewal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Vaishnava Vs State of Chhattisgarh