United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukko Markam @ Sukko Markami

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:40734

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 261 of 2021

¶6

1 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through Manager T.P. Hub United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Lic Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Tractor No. C.G. -18-G-0392 And Trolly No. C.G. -18-G-0393).

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Sukko Markam @ Sukko Markami S/o Hadma Markam Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gatam, Madkamipara Tahsil Katekalyan District South Bastar, Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Claimant),

¶10

2 - Javed Khan S/o Hakim Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Manjharpara, Katekalyan, District South Baster Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Tractor No. C.G. -18-G-0392 And Trolly No. C.G. -18-G-0393).

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

For Appellant	:	Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	:	None present though served

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

13/08/2025

¶16

Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 04.03.2021, passed in Claim Case No. 13 BALRAMPRASAD of 2018, whereby the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) Date: 2025.09.09 11:09:06 +0530 allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by

¶17

2

¶18

claimant/respondent No.1 against injury suffered by her in road accident in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.1,39,400/-, fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on nonapplicant No.2-Insurance Company/appellant.

¶19

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.14,06,000/- against the injury suffered by her in a road accident pleading therein that on 17.01.2017, applicant/claimant, went to Dumam River to collect sand in tractor bearing registration No. CG-18-G-0392 and trolley bearing registration No. CG-18-G-0393 owned and driven by non-applicant No.1. While sand was being collected, due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, one of wheel of the tractor ran over left foot of claimant while she was standing beside the tractor. As a result, the claimant suffered severe crush injuries to his heel and toes. She was immediately taken to Katekalayan and thereafter to Government Hospital, Dantewada where she was being treated as inpatient for 10 to 12 days. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 26 years old able bodied person working as labourer, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to the motor accidental injuries, she suffered 20% permanent disability and she is no longer able to perform her work as she did prior to the accident.

¶20

Non-applicant No.1 though participated in the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, however, no reply was filed to the claim application on his behalf.

¶21

3

¶22

Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any valid fitness certificate and permit.

¶23

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,39,400/- fastening liability upon the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon appellant/Insurance Company overlooking the fact that policy issued of offending tractor and trolley was liability only policy and as per FIR lodged immediately after accident, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. mentions that claimant was travelling on tractor at the time of accident. He submits that there is no space for sitting of any other person, other than the driver, no premium is paid to carry passenger or labourer on trolley or tractor. It is next contended that tractor and trolley was registered with transport office as agricultural vehicle and agricultural trailer, however, at the time of the accident, the offending tractor and trolley were being used for a purpose other than that for which they were registered i.e. agricultural use, hence, there was breach of policy conditions. There is no permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle which is also breach of conditions of insurance policy.

¶25

4

¶26

Learned counsel for claimant/respondent No.1 submits that learned Claims Tribunal justified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the impugned award being insurer of the offending tractor and trailer. He next contended that claimants have also filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month against the pleadings of Rs.6,000/- per month. He also submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation on other heads like pain and suffering, etc. for which claimant is entitled for. He submits that though application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed along with cross objection, however, in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020, the period of limitation has been extended and by extending the period of limitation, cross objection filed is within time.

¶27

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

¶28

So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company with regard to breach of policy conditions as claimant/injured was travelling on the tractor/trailer at the time of accident is concerned, pleadings made in the application would show that claimant has specifically pleaded that she met with an accident while loading the tractor with sand and standing on the side of the tractor trailer. From the pleadings it is appearing that at the time of accident, claimant/injured was not traveling on tractor trailer but she was outside

¶29

5

¶30

the tractor trailer standing on the side of the vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle, her leg came under the wheels of the tractor, due to which she suffered injury over her ankle and foot. The witness examined to prove the pleadings made in the claim application i.e. Suko Markam (injured) has stated in accordance with the pleadings made in the claim application. She was extensively cross-examined by counsel for appellant/non-applicant No.2 though at one place, she stated that due to rash and negligent driving, she fell down from the trolley, however, she corrected that she was not sitting on trolley, she was standing near the bank of river. Somaru Sethiya (A.W.-2), in his evidence, stated that he witnessed the accident. He further deposed that at the time of the incident, injured was loading sand onto the tractor-trolley, and due to rash and negligent driving of tractor, she sustained injuries over her person. Nothing adverse came in cross-examination of this witness.

¶31

Non-applicant No.2/appellant examined Administrative Officer of Insurance Company. He is not the witness to accident, however, he deposed before the Claims Tribunal based on the contents of the documents of criminal case like FIR and statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also submitted the documents of criminal case as Ex.D-4 to Ex.D-14, however, appellant/Insurance Company has not examined the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by police during investigation. Admissibility of the documents prepared by the police during course of investigation was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

¶32

6

¶33

Chamundeswari & Ors. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 and observed thus :-

¶34

“8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.”

¶35

In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer , reported in 2005 (1) WN 91 , the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that “In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”.

¶36

In the aforementioned facts of the case, nature of the documentary and oral evidence on record, further considering that Insurance

¶37

7

¶38

Company has not examined any other independent witnesses, more particularly witness whose statements were recorded by police, the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal that at the time of accident, injured/claimant was not traveling on the tractor can not be said to be erroneous. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for appellant that risk of injured/claimant was not covered as she was occupant of the vehicle for the aforementioned discussions is not sustianble. Claimant being standing on the side of the tractor was a third party, therefore, in the policy issued by appellant/insurance company for third party, risk of injured claimant is covered.

¶39

So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that offending vehicle was being used for other purpose than it was registered is concerned, non-applicant No.3 in reply filed before the Claims Tribunal has taken specific plea that offending vehicle was being used for other than the purpose for which it was registered and has filed copy of registration certificate of tractor and trailer as also the copy of the insurance policy. Registration certificate of tractor is placed on record as Ex.D-2, which mentions that class of vehicle – TRCAGR Tractor (Agriculture). Likewise, registration certificate of trailer is filed Ex.D-3, which also under class of vehicle it is mentioned as TRLAGR Trailer (Agriculture)). Registration of the vehicle is for agriculture purpose. Insurance Company issued policy covering the risk for the period from 20.12.2016 to 19.12.2017 under the heading it is mentioned Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicle Liability Policy.

¶40

8

¶41

Neither tractor trailer was registered for commercial purpose nor the policy is issued for commercial vehicle, therefore, it is clear from the documents enclosed by the appellant/Insurance Company as Ex.D-1, D-2 and D-3 that the vehicle was registered for agricultural purpose and not insured as commercial vehicle. However, from the pleadings made in the claim application and the evidence of the witnesses it is appearing that tractor trailer at the time of accident was loading sand from the river bed. Driver and owner of offending vehicle did not file any reply to claim application nor entered into the witness box to rebut the pleadings made against him in the claim application and the plea of defence taken by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company alleging breach of policy conditions. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering this aspect and not recording a finding that there was a breach of the policy conditions due to the use of the vehicle for a purpose other than agricultural use. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on Issue No.3 is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶42

For the foregoing discussion, the appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from liability to satisfy the amount of compensation and it is held that now non-applicant No.1/owner and driver would be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶43

Now, I proceed to consider the cross-objection filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶44

9

¶45

Undisputedly, the date of accident is 17.01.2017, pleadings made in the claim application is that claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as labourer, however, except the pleadings made therein, no other admissible evidence was brought on record nor any independent witness or the employer engaging claimant as witness was examined. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the pleadings and the evidence with regard to income of claimant and taking recourse to assess the income on notional basis, however, Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the wages prevailing at the place of which, claimant is resident of or taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labourer for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 is mentioned as Rs.6,206/- and claimant has pleaded in claim application her income as Rs.6,000/- per month, therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the pleadings and the oral evidence of claimant with regard to income of Rs.6,000/- per month as her income. Accordingly, her income is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶46

Learned Claims Tribunal accepting the disabilty certificate and the percentage of the disablity as mentioned therein has assessed the loss of income to the extent of 20%.

¶47

Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects as claimant suffered permanent disablity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. &

¶48

10

¶49

Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in case where victim of road accident is below age of 40 years on the date of accident, 40% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects.

¶50

In the case at hand, at the time of incident, the injured was found to be age group between 26 to 30 years, therefore, considering the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the age of the claimant to be between 26 to 30 years I find it appropriate to enhance the income of injured by 40% towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶51

As this Court has assessed the income of the injured/applicant as Rs.6,000/- per month, hence, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.6,000 + 2,400 = Rs.8,400/- accordingly annual income works out to Rs.1,00,800/-. Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17. Accordingly, after applying multiplier of 17, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.17,13,600/-.

¶52

Loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 20%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning works out to Rs.3,42,720/-.

¶53

11

¶54

Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for four months assessing the income of claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month. In view of assessment of income of claimant by this Court as Rs.6,000/- per month it is required to be enhanced to Rs.24,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶55

Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and not awarded any compensation on other heads like, pain and suffering, special diet, and attendant. Looking to the nature of injuries I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant. It is ordered accordingly.

¶56

On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶57

S.N.	Head		Amount. (Rs)
1.	Loss of earning	:	3,42,720.00
2.	For medical expenses	:	5,000.00
3.	For pain and suffering	:	10,000.00
4.	For special diet	:	5,000.00
5.	For attendant	:	5,000.00
6.	For loss of income during laid down period	:	24,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	3,91,720.00

¶58

Accordingly the appeal filed by appellant/Insurance Company and Cross-objection filed by claimant/respondent No.1 is allowed. The claimant/injured shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,91,720.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/injured as

¶59

12

¶60

compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above above.

¶61

As the Court exonerated the insurance company on the ground of use of vehicle. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was registered with RTO, at the time of accident sand was being loaded, offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with appellant/Insurance Company covering risk of third party. Claimant was third party and therefore, relying on upon the decision in case of National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and in case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650, I find it appropriate to direct appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation to claimants and thereafter recover the same in accordance with law from owner of offending vehicle. It is ordered accordingly.

¶62

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶63

Balram

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukko Markam @ Sukko Markami

Case brief

What is this about?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukko Markam @ Sukko Markami

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

Smt. Sushila Mandavi Vs Mohan Pradhani

Chandrashekhar Vs Bhuneshwar Dewangan

Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw Vs Abdul Rashid Baig

Yamini Patel Vs Pilluram Sahu

Smt. Nileshwari Verma Vs Dushyant Sahu

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Yamini Patel