Icici Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Ruhani Lakhani

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:13512

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 314 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Ruhani Lakhani, W/o Late Samim Lakhani, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Umar Atta Chakki, Main Road Saraipali Police Station Saraipali Distict Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Ku. Alisa Lakhani D/o Late Samim Lakhani Aged About 3 Years Represented Through Guardian /appellant No. 1/ Smt. Ruhani Lakhani Aged 30years W/o Late Samim Lakhani R/o Ward No. 12, Umar Att Chakki Main Road Saraipali Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Aaayat Lakhani S/o Late Samim Lakhani Aged About 8 Years Represented Through Guaedian /appellant No. 1/ Smt. Ruhani Lakhani Aged 30years W/o Late Samim Lakhani R/o Ward No. 12, Umar Att Chakki Main Road Saraipali Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Abdul Nasim Lakhani W/o Abdul Aziz Lakhani Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Umar Att Chakki Main Road Saraipali Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Smt. Haliya Lakhani W/o Abdur Aziz Lakhani Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Umar Att Chakki Main Road Saraipali Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶11

--- Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Sheik Jahir S/o Shiekh Basir , Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Near Masjid Santoshi Nagar, Raipur Present Address Ward No. 06, Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh…….(Driver Of CG 06 M 04 0929).

¶14

2

¶15

2 - Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kena ,arang District Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - I.C.I.C.I.Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Brach Manger, Vanijya Bhawan Devendra Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

And

MAC No. 243 of 2019

1 - ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

--- Appellant

¶22

Versus

¶23

1 - Smt. Ruhani Lakhani W/o Late samim Lakhani Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Umar Aata Chakki, Main Road, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶24

2 - Ku. Alisa Lakhani D/o Late samim Lakhani Aged About 3 Years Through Legal Representative Mother Ruhani Lakhani, R/o Ward No. 12 Umar Aata Chakki, Main Road, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶25

3 - Aayat Lakhani S/o Late samim Lakhani Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Representative Mother Ruhani Lakhani , R/o Ward No. 12 Umar Aata Chakki, Main Road, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶26

4 - Abdul Nasim Lakhani S/o Abdul Aziz Lakhani Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Umar Aata Chakki, Main Road, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶27

5 - Smt. Haliya Lakhani W/o Abdul Naseem Lakhani Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Umar Aata Chakki, Main Road, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶28

6 - Sheikh Jahir S/o Sheikh Basir Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Maszid, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Presently R/o Ward No.6, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh…….. (Driver)

¶29

7 - Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 31

¶30

3

¶31

Years R/o Village Kena, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh…….. (Owner)

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

For Appellants in : Mr. Balraj Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf MAC No.314/2019 of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Appellant in : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. MAC No. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. 243/2019

¶34

For Res. No. 3 in : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. MAC No.314/2019 Sourabh Gupta, Advocate.

¶35

For Res. Nos. 1 to : Mr. Balraj Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf 5 in MAC of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate No.243/2019

¶36

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶37

Judgment on Board

¶38

21.03.2025

¶39

As both these appeals arise out of the award dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.35/2016, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶40

As per averments in the claim petition, on 14.10.2015 deceased Samim Lakhani along with his friend Arun were coming to Saraipali on motorcycle. When they reached near village Teka, Sheikh Jahir driver of the offending vehicle Pick-up van bearing registration No. CG-06-M-0929, driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of deceased. As a result thereof, Samim Lakhani

¶41

4

¶42

and Arun both suffered grievous injuries and were taken to Govt. Hospital, Pithoura, for treatment from where they were referred to Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur and during treatment Samim Lakhani died on 15.10.2015. On report being made, offence was registered against driver Sheikh Jahir by the police.

¶43

On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.70,50,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.34,86,288/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 21.09.2016 till realization.

¶44

MAC No.243/2019: This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driver/respondent No.6 was not having valid and effective driving license. The vehicle was being driven without fitness. The deceased was not holding license to drive motorcycle. There was head on collision between two vehicles and in fact the Tractor was involved in the accident and the alleged offending vehicle was implanted, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claimed amount even stated that the vehicle was not having valid

¶45

5

¶46

driving license. Learned counsel further submits that despite all these facts, the learned Tribunal has closed the opportunity of the appellant-Company to lead further evidence and has fastened the liability. The award itself is perverse and liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants supports the impugned award insofar as it relates to fastening of liability on the insurance company. However, the claimants have also challenged the award on the point of quantum and has filed a separate appeal i.e. MAC No.314/2019 for enhancement of compensation.

¶48

MAC No.314/2019: This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just compensation in view of the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2009 (3) A.C.C.D. 1213. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income tax records of the deceased of the previous year which is already exhibited as Ex.P-13, which reveals the return for the year 2015-16 and 2014-16 showing the gross total income of the deceased as 2,88,544/-. The learned Tribunal has also committed error

¶49

6

¶50

in not considering the future prospect of the deceased who was a young man aged 30 years old. Also, the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards other heads such as loss of love and guidance to minor children and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which is utterly unjustified. Therefore, they pray for enhancement of the total compensation by this Court suitably.

¶51

Opposing the above contention, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has already awarded compensation on the higher side and therefore, there is no need for its enhancement by this Court.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶53

So far as the appeal preferred by the insurance company is concerned, the insurance company has assailed the award of the Tribunal on the ground that in the incident vehicle pick-up was not involved but a tractor was involved and the alleged vehicle was implanted; the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy but the Insurance Company has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence in support of its ground. The license of the driver was seized under Ex.A-11, which was valid till 21.09.2016, as such, the ground taken by the insurance company of violation of policy condition gets falsified.

¶54

7

¶55

Further, Anoj Kumar (PW-2) who is the eye-witness, has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the pick-up van and not by the tractor. He has denied the involvement of the Tractor in the accident. Thus, considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for holding the insurance company liable for payment of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in recording the said finding. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

As regards the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return for the year 2015-2016 after deducting the income tax and assessed the net annual income as Rs.2,84,690/-. Further age of the deceased has also been rightly assessed by the Tribunal as 32 years on the basis of material available on record, which has not been challenged by the other side and awarded the compensation keeping in view the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi JT 2017 (10) SC 450. However, no amount towards

¶57

8

¶58

loss of state, funeral expenses and consortium has been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, other relevant aspects of the matter and keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prannay Sethi JT 2017 (10) SC 450 and Magma Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following manner :-

¶59

Head	Awarded byTribunal	Awarded bythis Court
Net Annual Income	2,84,690/-	2,84,690/-
Future Prospect	Nil	Nil
Deduction towards living and personal expenses	Rs. 71,172/- (1/4th of 2,84,690/-)	Rs. 71,172/- (1/4th of 2,84,690/-)
Total Loss of Dependency	Rs.2,13,518/- (2,84,690–71,172)	Rs.2,13,518/- (2,84,690– 71,172)
Multiplier applied	16	16
Loss of Future Income	Rs.34,16,288/- (Rs.2,13,518 x 16)	Rs.34,16,288/- (Rs.2,13,518 x 16)
Towards conventional head	Rs.70,000/-	Towards spousal Consortium to claimant No.1 - Rs.40,000/-/ Towards parental Consortium to claimant No.2 – Rs.40,000/- Towards parental Consortium to claimant No.3 – Rs.40,000/-

¶60

9

¶61

		Towards filial Consortium to claimant No.4 – Rs.40,000/-
		Towards filial Consortium to claimant No.5 – Rs.40,000/-
		Towards loss of estate – Rs.15,000/-
		Towards Funeral Expenses – Rs.15,000/-
		Total Rs.2,30,000/-
Total Compensation awarded	Rs. 34,86,288/-	Rs.37,16,288/-

¶62

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.34,86,288/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rs.37,16,288 – Rs.34,86,288) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

In the result :-

¶64

MAC No.243/2019 preferred by the Insurance Company being without any substance is hereby dismissed.

¶65

MAC No.3148/2019 filed by the claimants is allowed with the modification in the impugned to the above extent that the claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest as

¶66

10

¶67

awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the

¶68

conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶71

Digitally signed by VIJAYpekde BHARATRAO PEKDE

Icici Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ruhani Lakhani

Case brief

What is this about?

Icici Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ruhani Lakhani

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

Shaukilal @ Shaukram Vs Satyaprakash

Smt. Manisha Kesarwani Vs Narbada Bai Suryawansi

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Pramod Sapre

Smt. Ruhani Lakhani Vs Sheik Jahir

Smt. Monika Tandia Vs Pawar Singh Yadav

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh