Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sulki Korram

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:46550

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 998 of 2017

¶7

1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Laxman Avenue, Medical College Raod, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Sulki Korram Wd/o Late Budhruram Korram@ Budhru Aged About 23 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Bhelwapadar Para, Village Sukurpal, Post Joba, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Kushwant S/o Late Budhruram Korram@ Budhru Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sulki Korram Claimant No. 1 Caste Bhatra, R/o Bhelwapadar Para, Village Sukurpal, Post Joba, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2

¶13

3 - Ku. Kushwanti D/o Budhram Korram @ Budhru Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sulki Korram Claimant No. 1 Caste Bhatra, R/o Bhelwapadar Para, Village Sukurpal, Post Joba, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - (Deleted) Smt. Balo Bai Korram @ Balo (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 31-07-2025 And 10-09-2025.

¶15

4.1 - Sudharu Ram Korram S/o Late Rati Ram Korram Aged About 31 Years R/o Qr. No. 107, Gali No. 8, Sukurpal, Kondagaon Joba, Dist Kondagaon (C.G.).

¶16

5 - Devsingh S/o Dalluram Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Kadaguda, Gram Chapka, Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Driver Of Vehicle, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Late Shekh Guffar S/o Shekh Jumman ( Died) Through Lrs Registered Owner Of Offending Truck No. C.G. 17-G-1056r/o Village Balenga, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward, Kalibadi School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Owner, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶18

6.1 - Shekh Arif S/o Late Shekh Guffar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Balenga, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward, Kalibadi School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3

¶20

6.2 - Smt. Farida Begam Wd/o Shekh Guffar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Balenga, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward, Kalibadi School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

6.3 - Shekh Akhtar S/o Late Shekh Guffar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Balenga, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ravindranath Tagore Ward, Kalibadi School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

7 - Shekh Khalil S/o Late Shekh Jumman Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Balenga, Tahsil Jandalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. RajAwasthi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar,
	Advocate.
For Respondent Nos. 5 to 7	: None.

¶25

MAC No. 773 of 2017

¶26

1 - Smt. Sulaki Korram Wd/o Late Budharuram Korra @ Budharu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Bhelwapadar Para Village Sukurpal Post Joba District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

2 - Master Kuswant S/o Late Budharuram Korram @ Budharu, Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sulaki Korram Mother R/o Bhelwapadar Para Village Sukurpal Post

¶28

4

¶29

Joba District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

3 - Miss Kuswanti D/o Late Budharuram Korram @ Budharu, Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sulaki Korram Mother R/o Bhelwapadar Para Village Sukurpal Post Joba District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

4 - Smt. Balo Bai Korram @ Balo (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 10-09-2025).

¶32

4.1 - Sudharu Ram S/o Late Rati Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 107, Ward No. 8, Sukurpal, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.).

¶33

---Appellant(s)

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 - Dev Singh S/o Dalluram Thakur, Aged About 28 Years R/o Kadaguda Village Chapka P.S. Bhanpuri District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of The Vehicle, Chhattisgarh.

¶36

2 - A Sheikh Akhtar S/o Late Sheikh Gaffar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ravindra Nath Taigore Ward Behind Kalibadi School Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh , District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶37

2.1 - Smt. Farida Begum Wd/o Late Sheikh Gaffar, Aged About 51 Years R/o Ravindra Nath Taigore Ward Behind Kalibadi School Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶38

5

¶39

2.2 - Sheikh Aarif S/o Late Sheikh Gaffar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Ravindra Nath Taigore Ward Behind Kalibadi School Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Laxman Avenue Medical College Road Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sheikh Khalil S/o Late Sheikh Jumman, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Balenga Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶41

--- Respondent(s)

¶42

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar,
	Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 2 &	: None.
4
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. RajAwasthi, Advocate.

¶43

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶44

Order on Board

¶45

10/09/2025

¶46

Amendment as directed by this Court dated 31.7.2025 is hereby

¶47

allowed.

¶48

6

¶49

The insurance company is allowed to incorporate the amendment during the course of the day.

¶50

Since appellant No. 4 namely, Smt. Balo Bai Korram @ Balo has expired as such the appellant is directed to amend the cause title while deleting the name of appellant No. 4 namely, Smt. Balo Bai Korram @ Balo. This be done during the course of the day.

¶51

Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 12.4.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 998/2017 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 773/2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 12.4.2017 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 60/2016.

¶52

MAC No. 998/2017

¶53

Brief facts of the case, is that, on 14.09.2014, Budhru Ram Korram was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-17-KF-2215 along with Lakheshwar Netam from Dahikoriga to Sukurpal when their motorcycle was hit by a truck bearing registration No. CG-17-GA-1056, which was coming from Jagdalpur. As a result of the accident, both Budhru Ram and Lakheshwar sustained grievous injuries leading to their death on the spot. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, Devsingh, the present

¶54

7

¶55

respondent no. 5. An FIR was registered as offence no. 250/14 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kondagaon, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed after investigation. At the time of the accident, Budhru Ram was 24 years old and earning Rs. 6,000 per month through agricultural work. His wife, minor children, and mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,47,000/against the driver, owner, and insurer (Oriental Insurance Company). Despite due service, the driver and the legal representatives of the owner remained unrepresented, and the Learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. The appellant (insurer) filed a detailed written statement, contending that the claimants had earlier filed Claim Case No. 88/2014, which was withdrawn, and subsequently filed the present Claim Case No. 60/2016, which is barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the motorcycle was being driven without a valid and effective driving license and that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the motorcycle’s driver, making the driver, owner, and insurer of the motorcycle necessary parties. Additionally, it was pleaded that the offending truck was being used without a valid permit and the driver did not possess a valid driving license, amounting to a breach of the insurance policy

¶56

8

¶57

terms, and thus, the insurer cannot be held liable. Based on the pleadings, the Learned Tribunal framed six issues and, after recording evidence, passed the impugned award granting total compensation of Rs. 5,38,400/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim, i.e. 16.03.2016, against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck, fixing the primary liability on the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶58

The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/5 of the income i.e. Rs. 7,200/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 28,800/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 24 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 5,18,400/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,38,400/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,38,400/which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be reduced in accordance with law. He further submits that the

¶60

9

¶61

impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is contrary to the material facts on record and suffers from multiple errors of law and appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in recording a negative finding with respect to the issue of contributory negligence, despite the facts and circumstances pointing otherwise. Further, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the breach of policy conditions, particularly in relation to the lack of a valid and effective permit at the time of the accident. Oral testimony of NAW-2, Shri Subramanyam Iyyar, and documentary evidence including insurance policy marked as Exhibit NA-5 and subsequent endorsement Exhibit NA-6, were not properly considered. Additionally, Exhibits NA-15 and NA-16, which categorically establish that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit at the relevant time, were also ignored. The Tribunal has also failed to apply the binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharthamma & Ors., 2004(2) D.M.P. 450 (SC) , which directly relates to claims involving lack of valid permits. The finding on Issue No. 2, relating to breach of policy condition, is perverse and legally unsustainable. Moreover, the Tribunal has further erred in applying a deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses instead of the standard 1/4th as per prevailing jurisprudence and has arbitrarily awarded an excessive

¶62

10

¶63

compensation amounting to Rs. 5,18,400/- under the head of loss of dependency. Hence, considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the appellant, and in light of the legal infirmities in the impugned judgment, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed in favour of the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

¶64

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants opposes the same.

¶65

None for respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

¶66

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶67

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.

¶68

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

¶69

As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, the

¶70

11

¶71

annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

¶72

Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 15 to 25 years and the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants are the mother(expired), wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1 /4, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶73

In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed . The deduction towards personal expenses is reassessed at 1/4 instead of 1/5 as determined by the learned Tribunal. Rest of the award is upheld. No order as to cost.

¶74

MAC No. 773/2017

¶75

Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, Late Budharuram Korram Budharu, comprising his widow, son, daughter, and mother. The respondents were the owner, driver, and insurer, respectively, of the truck bearing registration No. CG-17/GA/1056, which was involved in the accident. On 14.09.2014, while the deceased was traveling to Sukurpal on a motorcycle along with Lakheshwar Netam, the offending truck, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.

¶76

1, came from the opposite direction and collided with their

¶77

12

¶78

motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries on various parts of his body and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the concerned police station, and a charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 1 in the competent court. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 24 years old, working as a skilled laborer, and earning approximately Rs. 5,000 per month. His entire family was dependent on his income. Due to his unnatural and accidental death, the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Fourth Additional Claims Tribunal, Bastar, at Jagdalpur. After being served with notices, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim. The Tribunal, after framing six issues and recording the evidence presented by the appellants, passed an award dated 12.04.2017, granting compensation of Rs. 5,38,400/- in favor of the claimants.

¶79

The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/5 of the income i.e. Rs. 7,200/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 28,800/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 15 to 25 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 5,18,400/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims

¶80

13

¶81

Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,38,400/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶82

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,38,400/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶83

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶84

None for respondent Nos. 1 to 2 & 4.

¶85

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶86

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,

¶87

14

¶88

nor a Bonanza.

¶89

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

¶90

As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 14,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 50,400/-.

¶91

Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 15 to 25 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and mother (expired) of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 12,600/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 37,800/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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

¶92

15

¶93

Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,80,400/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and mother (expired) of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 8,60,400/- in the following manner:-

¶94

S.No.		Heads	Calculation
01	Towards	loss of	Rs 6,80,400/-
	dependency
02	Towards consortium(4 %+10%) with of 10% in years.	loss of 0,000X3+10 an increase every three	Rs. 1,44,000/-
03	Towards los	s of estate	Rs. 18,000/-
	along with 10% in every	increase of threeyears.
04	Towards	Funeral	Rs. 18,000/-
	Expenses	alongwith

¶95

16

¶96

increase of 10% in every three years.

¶97

Total Rs. 8,60,400 /-

¶98

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,60,400/-. After deducting Rs. 5,38,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,22,000/- .

¶99

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and mother (expired) of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 3,22,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶100

SD/-

¶101

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶102

Judge

¶103

Raghu Jat

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sulki Korram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sulki Korram

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

Rajesh Kumar Gajendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiran Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shweta Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Kanhai

Aakash Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh