Smt. Gulabi Baug Vs Ravi Thomas

1 - Ravi Thomas S/o Late M. Anthoni, Aged About 48 Years Caste Christian, R/o Mahuwa Bazaar, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, C/o Nirmal Kumar Agrawal Survyoday Nagar, Heerapur Road, (Pashu Aahar Dukan) Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Nirmal Kumar Agrawal S/o B.L.Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Survyoday Nagar, Heerapur Road, (Pashu Aahar Dukan), Raipur (C.G.) 3 - H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Through Legal Manager, H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 205-206, 2nd Floor, D.M. Tower, Red Course Road Indore (M.P.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellants	: Mr. Prabhat Saxena, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 and 2	: None
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

07.07.2025

¶21

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 22.09.2008 passed by 12^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.101/2007, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed on behalf of the appellants/claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,404/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

¶22

2. Since the Insurance Company has not appeared before the Claims Tribunal, it has challenged the award by filing Claim MJC No.636/2013, which was dismissed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg vide its judgment dated 02.11.2017.

¶23

3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on 31.01.2007, at about 8.15 PM, Chhotulal (since deceased) was going from Khursipar to Power House along with his friend on Hero Puck Moped and when they reached near Khursipar Gate, at that relevant time, one Scorpio bearing registration No.CG-10/T/9303 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”)

¶24

3

¶25

driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, dashed the Hero Puck Moped, due to which, both of them were fell down and sustained grievous injuries over their person. They were taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhialspur where during the course of treatment on 01.02.2007, Chhotulal died.

¶26

4. The claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘M.V. Act’) claiming Rs.9,04,400/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 19 years, working as Helper in a Truck bearing registration No.CG-07/ZC/4069 and earning Rs.3,100/- per month as salary.

¶27

5. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the averments in the claim petition and pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased. They have further pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the responsibility to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

¶28

6. Though the notice was issued to respondent No.3, but he had not appeared before the Claims Tribunal, as such learned Claims Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.3

¶29

4

¶30

7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 19 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.15,000/- per annum. While deducting 1/3rd towards personal, awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of dependency. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards other conventional heads as well as Rs.8,404/- towards medical expenses, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.1,33,404/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

¶31

8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder, 2025 ACJ 244 to contend that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimants in the absence of any specific bar to the same and as such, a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to

¶32

5

¶33

be awarded to the claimants on the death of their son in a motor vehicular accident.

¶34

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the appellants/claimants in a petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, which needs no interference.

¶35

10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record carefully.

¶36

11. Unlike a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act (where it is a burden on the Claimants to plead and prove the negligence), in a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the claimants cannot be required to plead or establish negligence.

¶37

12. The compensation is payable strictly in terms of the second schedule and the amount payable as compensation under second schedule cannot be reduced because of the negligence, if any. The Apex Court has made it clear that, the benefit of Section 163A of the M.V. Act is only in respect of a “specified category of persons having an annual income of less than Rs.40,000/-”.

¶38

6

¶39

13. In all other cases, the matter has to be considered in terms of Section 166 of the M.V. Act with reference to the factum of negligence to get the compensation (except the no-fault liability under Section 140 of the M.V. Act).

¶40

14. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the claimants, which was not rebutted by the non-applicants therein and further considering the medical bills, though it appropriate to award Rs.1,33,404/- as total compensation.

¶41

15. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,33,404/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶42

16. Admittedly, in an vehicular accident that had taken place on 31.01.2007, the deceased sustained grievous injures on his person and on the very next day, i.e. 01.02.2007, succumbed to the said injuries.

¶43

17. Considering the matter in its entirety and after hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation, fixing the same as Rs.1,33,404/- towards loss of life is quite inadequate. Going by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Halder (supra), we find it appropriate to award a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of life, thus resulting in a balance

¶44

7

¶45

compensation of Rs.3,66,596/- to be satisfied over and above the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶46

18. Since the policy is admitted, the 3^rd respondent-Insurer is directed to satisfy the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application, till satisfaction. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

¶47

19. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

20. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent.

¶49

Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Yogesh

Smt. Gulabi Baug v. Ravi Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Gulabi Baug v. Ravi Thomas

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

Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust Vs Atul Bajaj

Shri Sourabh Sonchhatra Vs Atul Bajaj

Jubeda Begam Vs Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

Dhanmet Vs Atwari

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Nasir Khan