The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Tilkunwar Bai

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 495 of 2018

¶5

1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Rama Trade Centre 1st Floor, Old Bus Stand, In Front Of Razeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Tilkunwar Bai Wd/o Late Ishwar Singh Gond Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Arasmeta, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Veer Singh Gond S/o Late Ishwar Singh Gond Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Arasmeta, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Pradeep Kumar Saroj S/o Shri Santram Saroj Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Near Raza Masjid, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Harikrishna Sharma S/o Ramsevak Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 99, J.P. Vihar Mangla Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate
For Respondents	: None

¶15

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11/07/2025

¶18

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶19

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,

¶20

1988, against the award dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned

¶21

2

¶22

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 70/2016 (“Tilkunwar Bai & another vs. Pradeep Kumar Saroj & others.”)

¶23

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on the early morning of January 18, 2016, Ishwar Singh Gond, a 52-year-old resident and a dedicated pump operator employed with Lafarge Cement Company at Aarsmeta, was commuting to his workplace on a bicycle when a tragic accident occurred near the Lafarge Cement Factory premises. As he approached the vicinity of the factory, he was struck with significant force by a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-10-EN-8731, herein referred to as the offending vehicle. The motorcycle, which was reportedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 3, collided with Ishwar Singh Gond, causing him to sustain grievous injuries that led to his death on the spot. At the time of his untimely demise, Ishwar Singh Gond was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 26,000 from his employment, and he was the primary breadwinner for his family, which included his wife and son. In the aftermath of the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Offence No. 12/16 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequent police investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet (challan) against the said driver. Seeking justice and rightful compensation, the wife and son of deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, naming the driver, owner, and insurer of the motorcycle as respondents, and claimed a total compensation of Rs. 55,50,000. Despite due service of notice, respondents no. 3 and 4 (driver and

¶24

3

¶25

owner of the motorcycle) failed to appear before the Claims Tribunal, prompting the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte against them. The appellant, however, appeared and filed a written statement, categorically denying that the accident involved the said motorcycle. Upon evaluating the pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed four issues and, after examining the evidence presented by the parties, rendered a final award on 17.10.2017. The Tribunal held the appellant, along with the driver and owner of the vehicle, jointly and severally liable, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,10,800/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim, i.e., 26.08.2016. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by this award, the appellant has now preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is fundamentally flawed and liable to be set aside, being contrary to the established facts, prevailing law, and overall circumstances of the case. At the very outset, it is humbly submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in law and fact by rendering a decision without properly appreciating the crucial question of the involvement of the so-called offending motorcycle. The Tribunal failed to frame any specific and pointed issues regarding the involvement and identification of the offending vehicle, thereby prejudicing the rights of the appellant and violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error by ignoring the contents of the First Information Report (Exhibit A.2), which clearly establishes that the offence was initially

¶27

4

¶28

registered against an unknown vehicle. The subsequent seizure of the alleged offending motorcycle after an unjustified delay of nearly 150 days casts a serious doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the prosecution's case. Moreover, the claimants have failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence demonstrating the actual involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. There is a glaring absence of any eyewitness or testimony from the individual who either lodged the FIR or informed the investigating officer about the alleged incident involving the motorcycle. The Tribunal, without proper evidentiary foundation or scrutiny, proceeded to pass an award based on conjectures and assumptions. It is further submitted that this amounts to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal has overlooked the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, with regard to the heads under which compensation is to be granted. As per the said judgment, under the conventional heads, only Rs. 18,000 should be awarded towards loss of estate, Rs. 18,000 towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 48,000 per claimant towards loss of consortium. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium, which is impermissible in light of the Pranay Sethi judgment. Instead, only Rs. 48,000 each should be awarded to the two claimants, amounting to Rs. 96,000 in total, as against the Rs. 1,00,000 wrongly granted by the Tribunal, thereby necessitating a reduction of Rs. 4,000 under this head. Further, under funeral expenses, only Rs. 18,000 is permissible, but the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000, which ought to be enhanced by Rs. 8,000. Even after this adjustment, there remains an excessive

¶29

5

¶30

grant of Rs. 82,000 towards loss of estate which should be Rs. 18,000 as against the Rs. 1,00,000 wrongly granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, a deduction of Rs. 78,000 is warranted from the total award amount of Rs. 21,10,800, bringing the legally sustainable compensation to Rs. 20,32,800. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the appellant prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal, exonerate the appellant from any liability arising out of the impugned award, and quash and set aside the said award passed by the Learned Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents annexed along with the record.

¶32

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenges the award dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), awarding compensation of 21,10,800/- along with 8% interest per ₹ annum to the claimants, being the wife and son of deceased Ishwar Singh Gond.

¶33

It is a settled principle that to fast-track compensation claims, technicalities should not be allowed to defeat justice. The Tribunal rightly proceeded ex-parte against the driver and owner for nonappearance. The appellant appeared and denied involvement. While the delay in seizure (150 days) is unfortunate, it does not completely negate the involvement of the motorcycle, especially since the FIR and charge sheet have been lodged, and the motorcycle is identified as the offending vehicle. However, lack of specific evidence like eyewitnesses

¶34

6

¶35

or direct proof linking the motorcycle requires careful scrutiny. Considering the totality of evidence, including FIR, charge sheet, and circumstances of accident, the Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant liable along with others.

¶36

The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 emphasized the need for rational and uniform guidelines in awarding compensation, avoiding arbitrary or exorbitant amounts that amount to windfall gains. Similarly, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ratanla l, reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 398, emphasized the need to reasonably fix compensation reflecting actual loss without overcompensation.

¶37

Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the view that although there was some delay in the seizure of the vehicle, the claimants' version is supported by the charge sheet and police investigation. The appellant failed to produce any rebuttal evidence to disprove the involvement of the said motorcycle. However, the contention of appellant regarding the miscalculation of compensation under the conventional heads deserves acceptance. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium, whereas only Rs. 48,000 each is permissible for two claimants, i.e., Rs. 96,000. Thus, there is an excess of Rs. 4,000. Similarly, towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000, whereas the correct amount should be Rs. 18,000, requiring an enhancement of Rs. 8,000. Furthermore, Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded towards loss of estate instead of Rs. 18,000, necessitating a reduction of Rs. 82,000. As a result, the total compensation needs to be reduced by Rs .78,000/-.

¶38

7

¶39

Accordingly, the claimants / respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. wife and son of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 20,32,800/- in the following manner:-

¶40

Sr.	Heads	Calculation
No.
1	T owards loss of income	Rs. 19,00,800 /-
2	Towards loss of estate (with 10% increase in every3years)	Rs. 18,000/-
3	Towards loss of Consortium to the two claimants@Rs. 48,000/-	Rs. 96,000/-
4	Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase in every3years)	Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 20,32,800/-

¶41

In light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced from Rs. 21,10,800/- to Rs. 20,32,800/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 26.08.2016, till the date of actual payment. The liability of the insurer along with the driver and owner of the motorcycle shall remain joint and several. The balance amount, if any, already deposited or paid shall be duly adjusted. The impugned award dated 17.10.2017 is accordingly modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Shayna

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tilkunwar Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tilkunwar Bai

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. Uttara Bai Vs Smt. Mala Kaushik

Chhanulal Dhivar Vs Ramprasad Barmate

Heera Vs Pravesh Choudhary

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. D. Vijya

Laxminarayan Bhave Vs Mohan

Ramdev Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation