Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihari Soni

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.07.16 13:10:01 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:31756

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 851 of 2018

¶7

1 - Bihari Soni S/o Sukharu Prasad Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Daupara Mungeli Tahsil Mungeli And District Bilaspur (Now Present District Mungeli) Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶8

2 - Ku. Amita Soni D/o Bihari Lal Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Daupara Mungeli Tahsil Mungeli And District Bilaspur (Now Present District Mungeli) Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Mukesh Singh S/o Deenanth Singh Rajput Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Dhantulsi Thana Pirona District Bhadohi (U.P.) Through Raj Auto Parts Bhanpuri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/c/5127)

¶12

2 - Harmit Kour W/o Late Gurmit Singh Aged About 47 Years Through Raj Auto Parts Bhanpuri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.C.G.04/c/5127)

¶13

3 - The Reliance General Insurance Comany Limited Branch Office Shop No. 412-413 Ravi Bhawan Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.C.G.04/c/5127)

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

MAC No. 727 of 2018

¶16

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302,

¶17

2

¶18

Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (Madhya- Pradesh)

¶19

---Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - Bihari Soni S/o Sukhru Prasad Soni, Aged About 62 Years R/o Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

2 - Ku. Amita Soni, D/o D/o Bihari Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

3 - Mukesh Singh D/o S/o Deenanath Singh Aged About 39 Years Driver, R/o Village Dhantulsi, P. S. Pirouna, Bhadohi. Uttar- Pradesh. 4 - Harmit Kaur W/o W/o Late Gurmit Singh Aged About 47 Years Through Raja Auto Parts, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

--- Respondents

¶25

MAC No. 853 of 2018

¶26

1 - Bihari Soni S/o Sukharu Prasad Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli And District Bilaspur (Now Present) District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶27

2 - Ku. Amita Soni D/o Bihari Lal Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli And District Bilaspur (Now Present) District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

¶28

---Appellants

¶29

Versus

¶30

1 - Mukesh Singh S/o Deenanth Singh Rajput Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Dhantulsi Thana Pirona District Bhadohi (U.P.) Through Raj Auto Parts Bhanpuri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/c/5127)

¶31

2 - Harmit Kour W/o Late Gurmit Singh Aged About 47 Years Through Raj Auto Parts Bhanpuri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/c/5127)

¶32

3

¶33

3 - The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Shop No. 412-413 Ravi Bhawan Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur,chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/c/5127)

¶34

--- Respondents

¶35

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶36

For Claimants	: Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate
For Owner & Driver	: None
For Insuranc Company	e : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶37

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶38

Judgment on Board

¶39

09.07.2025

¶40

1. As all the three appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶41

2. Challenge in all the appeals is to the award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.134/2011 and 135/2011, respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.4,26,400/- on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni and Rs.17,52,456/- on account of death of Vikas Soni.

¶42

4

¶43

3. MAC No.851/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation on account of death of Vikas Soni and MAC No.853/2018 has been filed by the claimants on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni stating that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶44

4. MAC No.727/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company while challenging the award on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of compensation and the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) is not maintainable.

¶45

5. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 11.12.2009 at about 11.30 AM, Smt. Sushila Soni along with her son Vikas Soni was going from Mungeli on their Santro Car, when they reached near Saddu Dharsiwa, at that relevant time, one Truck bearing registration No.CG-04/G/5127 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) coming from the side of Raipur, dashed the Santro Car, due to which, the accident occurred and Smt. Sushila Soni and her son Vikas Soni died on the spot.

¶46

6. The husband and daughter have filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking total compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni and Rs.40,00,000/- on account of death of Vikas Soni.

¶47

5

¶48

7. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement while stating that the driver was driving the vehicle with due diligence and it was not being driven any rash and negligent act. Since the vehicle was insured, as such insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation.

¶49

8. Written statement was also field by the Insurance Company while stating that the claim application filed by the claimants are not in accordance with law. It was pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, as such there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶50

9. On appreciation the evidence available on record as well as after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has allowed claim applications of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.4,26,400/- on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni and Rs.17,52,456/- on account of death of Vikas Soni and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein jointly and severally.

¶51

10. Learned counsel for the claimants in MAC No.851/2018 and 853/2018 submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in

¶52

6

¶53

awarding 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.

¶54

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave error while assessing the income of both the deceased. He further submits that the income of the deceased persons have assessed on the higher side as also the amount towards future prospects is perverse. It has been contended that the finding of negligence on the part of Insurance Company is perverse and it ought to have hold that for the accident, deceased were responsible, as such, the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.727/2018 is required to be allowed and the impugned award is required to be modified.

¶55

12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the claim cases carefully.

¶56

13. This Court shall first deal with the appeals filed by the claimants being MAC Nos.851/2018 and 853/2018, which were filed for enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶57

14. In MAC No.853/2018, learned Claims Tribunal though was held that deceased Smt. Sushila Soni was running Mahalaxhmi Jewellers and Indresh Jewellers, but there was no documentary proof regarding her income, the Claims Tribunal assessed the

¶58

7

¶59

income of deceased Smt. Sushila Soni on notional basis and fixed the same as Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum. The Claims Tribunal observed the age of the deceased Smt. Sushila Soni to be 60 years, as such, added 10% towards future prospects and assessed the income as Rs.59,400/- per annum as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 9 as per judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , awarded Rs.3,56,400/- towards loss of dependency, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper.

¶60

15. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate has to be awarded in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶61

8

¶62

Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

¶63

16. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni in the following manner:-

¶64

Sl. No.	Head	Calculation	Awarded amount
1.	Income of deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month	Rs.54,000/- per annum
2.	10% of (1) above to be added as future prospects	54,000 + 5,400 = Rs.59,400/-
3.	1/3 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased	59,400 / 3 = Rs.39,600/-
4.	Compensation after multiplier of 9 applied	39,600 x 9	Rs.3,56,400/-
5.	Towards loss of estate	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
6.	Towards loss of consortium to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.96,000/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
		Total Compensation Awarded	Rs.4,88,400/-

¶65

17. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to

¶66

9

¶67

Rs.4,88,400/- . After deducting Rs.4,26,400/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.62,000/- on account of death of Smt. Sushila Soni.

¶68

18. In MAC No.851/2018, learned Claims Tribunal though was held that deceased Vikas Soni was in the business of selling Tiles and Marbles in Mahalaxhmi Sales and with regard to the income of the deceased, the claimants have produced income tax returns of the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. After analyzing the same, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Vikas Soni as Rs.1,46,500/- per annum. The Claims Tribunal observed the age of the deceased Vikas Soni to be below 40 years, as such, added 40% towards future prospects and assessed the income as Rs.2,05,100/- per annum as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). After deducting income tax of the year 2009-10, the annual income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.1,97,937/-. As the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 17 as per judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), awarded Rs.16,82,456/- towards loss of dependency, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper.

¶69

19. As per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (supra), the claimants are entitled to get a

¶70

10

¶71

sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate has to be awarded in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

¶72

20. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death of Vikas Soni in the following manner:-

¶73

Sl. No.	Head	Calculation	Awarded amount
1.	Income of deceased @ Rs.1,46,500/- per annum	Rs.1,46,500/- per annum
2.	40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects	1,46,500 + 58,600 = Rs.2,05,100/-
3.	After deducting income tax for the year 2009- 10	2,05,100 – 1, 50, 000 = 55,100 x 10% = 5,510 + 1,653 educational cess = 7,163 (2,05,100 – 7,163)	Rs.1,97,937
4.	1/2 of (3) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased	1,97,937 / 2 = Rs.98,968/-
5.	Compensation after multiplier of 9 applied	98,968 x 17	Rs.16,82,456/-
6.	Towards loss of estate	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
7.	Towards loss of consortium to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every	Rs.96,000/-

¶74

11

¶75

		three years
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of	Rs.18,000/-
		10% in every
		three years
		Total Compensation Awarded	Rs.18,14,456/-

¶76

21. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.18,14,456/- . After deducting Rs.17,52,456/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.62,000/- on account of death of Vikas Soni.

¶77

22. From the above discussions, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC Nos.851/2018 and 853/2018 are allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.62,000/- in each of claim petition along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim applications till its realization in both the cases in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶78

23. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.727/2018.

¶79

24. The provisions provided under Section 166 of M.V. Act for filing an application for compensation reads as under :-

¶80

“ 166. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made—

¶81

(a) by the person who has sustained the

¶82

12

¶83

injury; or

¶84

(b) by the owner of the property; or

¶85

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

¶86

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

¶87

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

¶88

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

¶89

Provided that where no claim for

¶90

13

¶91

compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.]

¶92

3[***]

¶93

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.]”

¶94

25. A bare reading of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of M.V. Act provides that in a death case application can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of deceased.

¶95

26. The entitlement and right to file an application is definitely provided to by all or any of the legal representatives of deceased. The claimants being father and sister of deceased Vikas Soni in MAC No.851/2018 and husband and daughter of deceased Smt. Sushila Soni in MAC No.853/2018 are the legal representatives and they are having right to file an application under the M.V. Act.

¶96

27. In that view of the matter, the ground urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claim petitions were not maintainable as they have been filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, is not tenable.

¶97

28. In the result :-

¶98

14

¶99

(i) MAC Nos.851/2018 and 853/2018 filed by the

¶100

claimants are allowed in part.

¶101

(ii) MAC No.727/2018 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶102

29. Since it is an admitted that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants in both the appeals being MAC Nos.851/2018 and 853/2018 as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶103

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

¶104

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶105

Yogesh

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Bihari Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Bihari Soni

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. Sarita Panigrahi Vs Smt. Rukani

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gujeshwari

Minor Barun Nayak Vs Manoranjan Pradhan

Smt. Nootan Chouhan Vs Arshad Ali Khan

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish @ Bhurva

Ram Ratan Banjare Vs Jainuram Sori