Jageshwar Dewangan Vs Noharlal Singh

¶1

-1-

¶2

2025:CGHC:31440

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 972 of 2019

¶6

Jageshwar Dewangan S/o Kaushal Dewangan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dudiya, Police Station Arjunda, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. .....Owner. ....(Non Applicant No. 2)

¶7

--- Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Noharlal Singh S/o Sitaram Sinha Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Anda, Police Station - Anda, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ........Claimant

¶10

2 - Rupesh Kumar Yadav S/o Nandlal Yadav R/o Village Bhothli, Police Station- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. .........Driver. ......(Non Applicants)

¶11

3 - Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited First Floor, Anupam Nagar, New Circuit House Road, Near State Bank Branch Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. .....Insurer

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.23 10:25:05 +0530

¶14

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate For Resp .No. 1 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Shau, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate

¶15

_______________________________________________________

¶16

-2-

¶17

MAC No. 1879 of 2019

¶18

Nohar Lal Sinha S/o Sitaram Sinha Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Anda Thana Anda, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh..........Claimant

¶19

--- Appellant (s)

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - Rupesh Kumar Yadav S/o Nandlal Yadav, R/o Village Bhothali Thana Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). Hall MukamNear Bus Stand Arjunda (Near- House Of Uncle Chandpraksh Yadu, District Balod Chhattisgarh............Driver

¶22

2 - Jageshwar Dewangan S/o Koushal Dewangan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dudiya, Thana Arjunda, District Balod Chhattisgarh.............Owner

¶23

3 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor Anupam Nagar, New Circuit House Road, Near State Bank Branch, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh................Insurer

¶24

--- Respondent(s)

¶25

________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp .No. 1 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Shau, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate

¶26

_______________________________________________________

¶27

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board

¶28

08/07/2025

¶29

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the cases are heard finally.

¶30

MAC No.972 of 2019 is filed by appellant-Owner challenging liability fastened upon him to satisfy the award of compensation and also quantum of compensation, and MAC No.1879 of 2019 is filed by

¶31

-3-

¶32

appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. As both these appeals arise out of award dated 16.01.2019 passed by learned First Additional Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No.325 of 2017, both the appeals are being decided by this common order.

¶33

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant in MAC No.1879 of 2019 filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, pleading therein that on 02.12.2016, at 11:00 AM, when claimant Nohar Lal Sinha was going from village Anda to village Chicha in vehicle CG 07/AB-9793, at that time, driver of motorcycle No.-CG.08/AA/5682 driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle driven by claimant, due to which, his right leg fractured and he sustained injuries on different parts of his body. He was first admitted to Government Hospital Durg and then to Prachi Hospital Pulgaon Durg where his leg was operated and a plate was implanted. Because of non-recovery of the injury he become permanently disabled. At the time of incident, he was 66-year-old person earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from the business of agriculture and vegetables selling. Applicant -claimant, claimed compensation of Rs. 10,31,000/- from non-applicants under various heads.

¶34

Non -applicant No.1 by filing its written statement had denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that a false crime has been registered against him, accident happened due to the negligence of the applicant himself in which he is not at fault.

¶35

-4-

¶36

Compensation claimed is highly exaggerated filed on false grounds, hence the claim against him be dismissed.

¶37

Non-applicant No.2 in its written statement also denied the pleadings of the claimant and he further pleaded that applicant has made false statements regarding work and income. No accident was caused by non-applicant No.1. A false report has been lodged against nonapplicant No.1, of an accident occurred with some other vehicle. Nonapplicant No.1, on seeing the applicant suffered accidental injuries, had taken him to the hospital with good intentions. Since the vehicle is insured with non-applicant No.3, it is the non-applicant No.3 who is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any.

¶38

Non-applicant No.3 by filing its written statement denied all the pleadings made in the claim application and averred that disability certificate has not been submitted. Accident is a result of contributory negligence in which the applicant has not made the insurance company of his own vehicle a party. They were not given mandatory information of accident. There was no negligence on the part of nonapplicant No.1. Since non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid license at the time of the incident, as such, insurance policy conditions have been violated, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimant.

¶39

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which

¶40

-5-

¶41

appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found proved, nonapplicant No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner) were held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- .

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant –owner in MAC No.972 of 2019 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal overlooking the fact that offending vehicle was insured by non-applicant No.3 has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon owner of the vehicle. He contended that even if Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the date of accident driver of the vehicle was not possessed with the valid and effective driving licence then also learned Claims Tribunal ought to have issued direction to pay and recover. He next contended that amount of compensation assessed and awarded by Claims Tribunal is on higher side.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 /claimant would submit that respondent No.1 has filed separate appeal (MAC No.1879 of 2019) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. He also contended that in the facts of the case where the Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that driver of offending vehicle on the date of accident was not possessed with a valid and effective driving licence, Tribunal ought to have issued direction to non-applicant No.3 to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from non-applicant /owner of offending vehicle. He further submits that learned Claims

¶44

-6-

¶45

Tribunal has assessed income of the claimant on lower side as Rs.4,500/- .He next contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads is much on lower side.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/insurance company in both the cases would submit that amount of compensation awarded is just and proper. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability as on the date of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed valid and effective driving licence which is breach of policy conditions.

¶47

11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case.

¶48

So far as submission made by learned counsel for the appellant -owner in MAC No.972 of 2019 that learned Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal in para-24 of the award has recorded a finding that in the criminal case offence is also registered for not having valid and effective driving licence with non-applicant No.1.Claims Tribunal further recorded that non-applicant No.1 did not enter into witness box nor has produced copy of licence. Non-applicant No.3 /insurance company has submitted an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC seeking direction of the Tribunal to non-applicant No.1 to produce copy of licence and instead of submitting reply it has been stated that nonapplicant No.1 was not having licence to drive the offending vehicle. Finding recorded by learned Tribunal is not stated to be perverse to the evidence available on record.

¶49

In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court,

¶50

-7-

¶51

finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal on issue No.4 that the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 in breach of policy conditions cannot be said to be erroneous and accordingly it is affirmed. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant (owner) that the liability is erroneously fastened upon him, is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled.

¶52

So far as the second ground raised by appellant-owner that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.5,85,222/- as total compensation to be on higher side is concerned, perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant after accident took treatment as inpatient for about 100 days in the hospital. Tribunal has further recorded that claimant took treatment for a period of 100 days as inpatient is proved from documents filed by claimant in support of claim application. Discharge ticket of Prachi Hospital is filed as Ex.P-18 in which date of admission, mentioned as 02.12.2016 and date of discharge as 11.03.2017. In the diagnosis it is mentioned RTAcompound commuted fracture lower end of femur along with other injuries.

¶53

In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment for about 6 months as the claimant after discharge from hospital could not able to work for considerable period in view of nature of injury suffered and operation underwent by him.

¶54

Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of claimant as Rs.4500/- for accident of dated 02.12.2016. Claimant failed to prove

¶55

-8-

¶56

the nature of occupation and income by adducing clinching evidence before the Claims Tribunal. Hence, learned Tribunal has assessed income of claimant on notional basis, however, it fell into error in assessing income on lower side of Rs.4500/-. In the facts of case, where the claimant failed to prove nature of occupation and income of person/deceased it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income notionally keeping in mind the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing in the area of which deceased was resident and can also consider minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident.

¶57

For the purpose of assessing income of claimant on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. According to notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum wages act for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 minimum wages for unskilled labourer is fixed as Rs.6206/- per month and therefore I find it appropriate to assess income of claimant as Rs.6206/- per month . It is ordered accordingly. Award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by Claims Tribunal under the head of “loss of amenities in life, pains and suffering, special diet” is much on lower side. Claimant suffered RTA- compound commuted fracture lower end of femur along with other injuries and took treatment as inpatient for about 100 days and therefore in the aforementioned facts of case I find it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards ‘pain and Suffering’,

¶58

-9-

¶59

Rs.10000/- towards ‘special diet’. Award of compensation under head loss of ‘damage to vehicle’ of Rs.5000/- and compensation under head of ‘attendant’ appear to be just and proper which do not call for any interference. Considering the place of resident of applicant, I find it appropriate to award Rs.5000/- to the claimant under the head ‘conveyance/transportation expenses’. It is ordered accordingly. Claimant suffered communicated distal fracture of distal end of femur, fracture of mid shaft of tibia. There was malunion of shaft tibia. In the above facts and nature of injuries suffered by claimant, I find it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries.

¶60

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re-

¶61

compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶62

S. N.	Heads Comp	ensation
1.	Loss of income for 6 months (6206 x 6= 37236) : Rs.	37,236
2.	Expenses towards treatment taken in hospital and medicines : Rs.	5,03,221
3.	Grievous Injuries : Rs.	20,000
4.	Future medical expenses : Rs.	10,000
5.	Pain and Suffering : Rs.	20,000
6.	Special Diet : Rs.	10,000
7.	Loss of damage to vehicle : Rs.	5,000
8.	Attendant : Rs.	20,000
9.	Conveyance/Transportation expenses : Rs.	5,000
	Total compensation :Rs.	6,30,457

¶63

-10-

¶64

Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,30,457/- instead of Rs.5,85,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶65

Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶66

As the exoneration of insurance company from its liability under the policy is only on the ground that on the date of accident driver of the offending vehicle did not posses valid and effective driving licence and therefore taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & Anr Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 650, I find it appropriate to allow prayer made by learned counsel for the claimant for issuance of direction to respondent insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to claimant and thereafter to recover the same . Accordingly non-applicant No.3 insurance company is directed to first deposit the entire amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶67

For recovery of the amount of compensation, non-applicant No.3 is not required to file separate proceedings but it can recover the same in the same execution proceeding on filing appropriate application in accordance with the directives issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224.

¶68

-11-

¶69

In the result MAC No.972 of 2019 filed by appellant-owner of the offending vehicle is dismissed and MAC No.1879 of 2019 filed by appellant-claimant is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶70

Sd/- Sd/-

¶71

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶72

Praveen

Jageshwar Dewangan v. Noharlal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jageshwar Dewangan v. Noharlal Singh

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

Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Vs Hulas Sahu

Kartikram Sahu Vs Durgeshwar Nayak

Ku. Nishtha Pandey Vs Joji Babu Ji

Smt. Ankumari Sahu Vs Mannulal Sahu

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rani Vastrakar