Mohd. Ameen Khan Vs Dashrath Korram

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48661

¶3

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 64 of 2018

¶7

1 - Mohd. Ameen Khan S/o Mohd. Yahiya Khan Aged About 42 Years R/o Kodabhat, Tahand P.S. Kanker, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Owner Of The Vehicle No. C G 04 J E 0307, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Dashrath Korram S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Korram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Satlor, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Uttar - Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Smt. Jainbati Korram W/o Dashrath Korram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Satlor, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Uttar - Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Rohan Korram S/o Dashrath Korram Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through His Natural Guardian Father Dashrath Korram, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Korram , R/o Village Satlor, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Uttar - Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Claiments, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Narendra Mandavi S/o Shivram Mandavi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Turakhar, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Uttar - Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Driver Of The Vehicle No. C G 04 J E 0307, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - The Oriential Insurance Co.Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office M.B. Trade Centre, Iind Floor,

¶15

2

¶16

Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Insurer Of The Vehicle No. C G 04 J E 0307, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate

¶19

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

22.09.2025

¶22

This is an appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar (Kanker) in Claim Case No.108 of 2016, in which compensation of Rs.6,83,000/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶23

Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 seeking monetary compensation of Rs. 24,82,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Eighty Two Thousand only) on the grounds that on 29.08.2016, the deceased, Johan Korram, sustained fatal injuries after falling from the offending vehicle while attempting to step down to sit in its cabin due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, respondent No. 4, Narendra Mandavi. The deceased, aged approximately 23 years at the time, was employed as a helper with the appellant, earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. A criminal offence was registered against respondent No. 4, and a

¶24

3

¶25

charge sheet was filed accordingly. The claimants alleged entitlement to compensation on various heads totaling Rs. 24,82,000/-. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim, denying involvement in the accident and asserting that the collision involved another vehicle; respondent No. 2’s vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, who accepted liability only if the vehicle was found responsible. Respondent No. 3 opposed the claim on the grounds that the driver lacked a valid driving licence, the deceased was seated improperly at the rear of the vehicle, and no premium had been paid for the occupant’s coverage, thereby excluding liability under the insurance policy. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering evidence and hearing arguments, partly allowed the claim on 28.07.2017, awarding Rs. 6,83,000/- as compensation jointly and severally against the appellant and respondent No. 4, while exonerating the insurance company from liability. A certified copy of the award dated 28.07.2017 is annexed as Annexure A-1, prompting the filing of this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed errors both in law and in fact while passing the impugned award, which is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability on the erroneous ground that there was a breach of policy conditions, holding that the deceased was not a cleaner or conductor and that no premium was paid for his coverage under

¶27

4

¶28

the policy, thereby wrongly concluding that he was not a third party. The Tribunal further erred in interpreting the seating capacity of the vehicle and the scope of the insurance policy, ignoring that the policy (Ex. D-1) specifically included an additional premium of ₹100/- towards “Legal Liability for Operation/Maintenance,” which covers persons such as helpers. Moreover, the insurance company failed to prove that the deceased was sitting on the vehicle at the time of the accident, as no direct witness, including the informant or scribe of the FIR, was examined to substantiate this claim, thereby failing to discharge the burden of proof. The Tribunal also erred in its assessment of compensation by wrongly assuming the age of the deceased as 23 years, incorrectly fixing the annual income at ₹36,000/-, applying an excessive multiplier of 18, and making inflated deductions under various heads, including loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and arrived at perverse findings, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the impugned award is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent - insurance company opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation

¶30

5

¶31

to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶32

After a thorough evaluation of the evidence laid down by both the owner and the insurance company, it is clear that the insurance company has successfully denied that the deceased was an employee or helper covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, in the absence of any coverage under the policy for the deceased, the liability of the insurance company cannot be fastened.

¶33

The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and has fastened the liability on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The award passed by the Tribunal is well-reasoned, just, and in accordance with law and facts on record. There is no ground for interference with the same by this Court.

¶34

Consequently, the appeal filed by the owner is dismissed . The award dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar (Kanker) in Claim Case No. 108 of 2016 is upheld . Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶35

Sd/( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶36

Saxena

Mohd. Ameen Khan v. Dashrath Korram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ameen Khan v. Dashrath Korram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chirag Sharma Vs Mahendra Singh

Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Vs Mahboob Khan

Shailesh Mounas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh