Firat Ram Bareth res. No. 2 Died Vehicle Owner Through Lrs. Shrimati Gayamati Bareth and Ors. Vs Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.01.07 10:31:16 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:292

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1608 of 2015

¶7

Raj Mangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan S/o Shri Laxman Chauhan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Quarter No. 1111 Sector 05, Balco Nagar Police Station Balco, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Sitaram Bareth S/o Shri Firan Lal Bareth, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Baradwar Basti, Police Station- Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ....… Driver

¶11

Firat Ram Bareth (Now died the then owner of offending vehicle) Through Legal Representatives

¶12

(A) Smt. Gayamati Bareth W/o Late Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

(B) Ramesh Kumar Bareth S/o Late Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 42 Years R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶14

(C) Lakesh Kumar Bareth S/o Late Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 37 Years R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶15

2

¶16

H. D. F. C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Raipur, Office Devendra Nagar Three Way Chowk Commerce Building Raipur Chhattisgarh ...… Insurer Of Vehicle

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant	: Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents 2A to 2C	: Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Respondent	Mr. Tanmay Roy, Advocate, on behalf of
No.3	Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate

¶19

MAC No. 630 of 2015

¶20

Firat Ram Bareth (Respondent No.2, Died vehicle owner) Through LRs

¶21

(A) Shrimati Gayamati Bareth W/o Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶22

(B) Ramesh Kumar Bareth S/o Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 42 Years R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶23

(C) Lakesh Kumar Bareth S/o Firat Ram Bareth, Aged About 37 Years R/o Main Road Baradwar Basti, Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶24

--- Appellants

¶25

Versus

¶26

Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan S/o Shri Laxman Chauhan Aged About 40 Years R/o Qua. No. 1111 Sector 05 Balco Nagar District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶27

3

¶28

Sitaram Bareth S/o Firan Lal Bareth Aged About 45 Years R/o Baradwar Basti P.S. Baradwar District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶29

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Raipur Devendra Nagar Tiraha, Vinijay Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶30

--- Respondent(s)

¶31

For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of No.1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Tanmay Roy, Advocate, on behalf of No.3 Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

02/ 0 1 / 2025

¶35

1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 05.02.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No.185/2010 awarding compensation of Rs.5,18,432/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the injured claimant, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶36

2. MAC No.1608/2015 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and MAC No.630/2015 has been preferred by the owner for exoneration from the liability of payment of compensation.

¶37

3. The gist of claim before the Claims Tribunal, in brief, was that on 26.10.2009 claimant Raj Mangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan was coming from Champa to his residence Balco along with Dilip Thakur on a Hero Honda motorcycle. The motorcycle was being

¶38

4

¶39

driven by claimant Raj Mangal Chauhan and Dilip was siting behind him. At about 8.45 p.m. when they reached near Domnala bridge of village Barbaspur on Champa Korba main road, respondent Sitaram Bareth driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 11 AB 0997 in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle from front, as a result of which, claimant Raj Mangal Chauhan sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and suffered fracture near left knee. He was treated first at District Hospital, Korba and then at Balco Hospital. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against driver Sitaram Bareth at Police Chowki Urga, PS Kotwali Korba (CG).

¶40

4. It was claimed that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000 per month from betel shop (betel cart). On account of the accident, he suffered 45% permanent disability. Therefore, the claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.27,60,000/- for disability, loss in future income, physical and mental agony, medical expenses and also under other heads.

¶41

5. Learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, considering permanent disability of claimant to be 30%, calculated loss of annual income as Rs.14,400 (48,000 x 30%). Considering the age of the claimant to be 40 years, multiplier of 16 was applied and the total loss of income/earning worked out to Rs.2,30,400 (14,400 x 16). In addition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,48,032/- for medical expenses, Rs.20,000 for Attendant, nutritious food etc. and Rs.20,000 for physical & mental agony. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,18,432/- with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the injured claimant, against which MAC No.1608/2015 has been preferred by the

¶42

5

¶43

claimant for enhancement. While passing the impugned award the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated and therefore the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability and the liability of payment of compensation was saddled upon the driver/owner. It is this fastening of liability upon the owner against which MAC No.630/2015 has been filed by the owner .

¶44

Now, the appeal preferred by the owner is being decided first .

¶45

MAC No.630 of 201 5

¶46

6. Learned counsel appearing for the owner submits that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability by holding that the vehicle in question did not have valid permit and fitness certificate whereas the vehicle had valid permit and fitness certificate. Thus, prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶47

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle in question was being operated without valid permit and fitness certificate, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. Hence, the appeal of the owner deserves to be dismissed.

¶48

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶49

9. The Insurance Company has examined Umesh Tripathi, Assistant Grade-III of Regional Transport Office Bilaspur and G. D. Bhoi, Assistant Grade-II of District Transport Office, Janjgir-Champa in support of their contention regarding permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. Umesh Tripathi has stated that as per the original record register, permit of the vehicle in question is Ex.D1 which was issued for the period from 15.12.2009 to 14.12.2014. The accident took place on 26.10.2009. As such, on the date of incident, the vehicle in question did not have a valid permit. G. D. Bhoi, has stated that the details of registration of the vehicle in

¶50

6

¶51

question is Ex.D-5 and it was registered in District Transport Office, Janjgir-Champa on 11.12.2009. The fitness certificate of the said vehicle is Ex. D-6 which was issued on 11.12.2009 and it was valid till 10.12.2011. As such, on the date of incident the vehicle did not have fitness certificate. Learned Tribunal, while discussing this issue in detail in paragraphs - 17 to 26 of its award, reached to the conclusion that at the relevant point of time the vehicle in question did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. In this way, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that there has been a violation of the insurance conditions is found to be proper. Hence, the appeal of the vehicle owner is not found to be sustainable and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶52

MAC No.1608 of 201 5

¶53

10. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,18 ,432/- which is a very meager amount and needs to be enhanced suitably . He submits that as per the disability certificate (Ex.P/161), the appellant suffered 45% permanent disability due to the accident whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability to be 30% and calculated the compensation accordingly. He submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the injured claimant could have earned much more if he had not met with the accident. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded less amount for medical expenses than the medical bills submitted by the claimant. He next submits that though the insurance company has been exonerated due to violation of insurance conditions, considering the beneficiary legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act, an order of pay and recover should be passed.

¶54

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶55

7

¶56

oppose the submission made by the counsel for claimant and submit that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶57

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶58

13. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶59

14. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶60

15. It is an injury case. The claimant has brought on record his permanent disability certificate (Ex. P-161) issued by the District Medical Board, Korba. According to the said certificate, there was 45% permanent disability on account of fracture in left leg. This fact also stands proved from the statement of Dr. Rudrapal Singh who was a member of the Medical Board and had put his signature in the disability certificate.

¶61

16. However, perusal of the record would show that the income of the claimant was from betel shop (cart) which is generally done while sitting in the shop. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation taking 30% permanent disability according to his whole body considering the nature of work and the injury sustained by the claimant, which seems to be proper and does not require any interference.

¶62

17. The Tribunal has assessed the income of claimant at Rs.4,000/per month i.e. Rs.48,000 per annum as no documentary evidence regarding income of the claimant has been brought on record. But, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while calculating

¶63

8

¶64

compensation. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the future prospects would be 40% of the income. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.19,200, the amount comes to Rs.67,200.

¶65

18. Considering the permanent disability of 30% as has been assessed, the loss of earning/income would become Rs.20,160 (30% of 67200) per annum. Taking into consideration the age of claimant to be 40 years at the time of accident and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be 15 instead of 16 as wrongly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the loss of income due to permanent disability becomes to Rs.3,02,400 (20,160 x 15).

¶66

19. As regards the compensation awarded under medical expenses, the contention of claimant is that the amount of Rs.2,48,032 awarded towards medical expenses is less than the medical bills (Ex.P-10 to P-164A) produced by the claimant. Learned Tribunal while considering the medical expenses in para-29 of its award has held that the amount of Rs.41,250 mentioned in Ex.P-40 is an expenditure written on plain paper which has not been verified and therefore the same is not acceptable. Except the amount shown in Ex.P-40, all other medical bills submitted by the claimant have been duly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the amount of Rs.2,48,032 awarded towards medical expenses is found to be proper. The amount of Rs.20,000 for Attendant, nutritious food etc. and Rs.20,000 for physical & mental agony awarded by the Tribunal is also found to be proper and reasonable. Accordingly, the claimant would become entitled for total compensation in the following manner:-

¶67

9

¶68

Heads	Calculation
Loss of income due to disability	3,02,400
Medical expenses	2,48,032
Physical and mental agony	20,000
For Attendant, nutritious food etc. during hospitalization	20,000
Total compensation	Rs. 5,90,432

¶69

20. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.5,90,432/- from which after deduction of Rs.5,18,432/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.72,000/-.

¶70

21. So far as the prayer by claimant for issuing an order of “pay and recover” is concerned, in the present case, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company but due to breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company has been exonerated. However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

¶71

22. In the result, MAC No.1608/2015 preferred by the injured-claimant is partly allowed . The claimant Raj Mangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its

¶72

10

¶73

realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶74

23. MAC No.630/2015 preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle stands dismissed .

¶75

24. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in the appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶78

Khatai

Firat Ram Bareth res. No. 2 Died Vehicle Owner Through Lrs. Shrimati Gayamati Bareth and Ors. v. Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firat Ram Bareth res. No. 2 Died Vehicle Owner Through Lrs. Shrimati Gayamati Bareth and Ors. v. Rajmangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan and Ors.

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

Sakharam and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs Maksuda Chouhan

Ballu @ Naresh Sarathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raj Mangal Chauhan @ Rajendra Chauhan Vs Sitaram Bareth

Mitlal @ Mitwa Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udai Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh