Dhalgan Sahu Vs Aslam Khan

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15616

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1372 of 2023

¶6

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

¶7

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.04.09 11:10:11 +0530

¶8

1 - Dhalgan Sahu S/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Yadav Nagar, Ram Mandir, Tifra, Bilaspur, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

2 - Saato Bai W/o Dhalgan Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Yadav Nagar, Ram Mandir, Tifra, Bilaspur, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Aslam Khan S/o Abdul Majid Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Driver R/o House No. 1675, Panchshil School, Lalbahadur Shashtri Ward, District Jabalpur (M.P.).......(Vehicle No. M.P.20-H.B.-4067 Driver And Owner)

¶13

2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Nwar Icici Bank District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)..........(Vehicle No. M.P.20H.B.-4067 Insurer).

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Vishnu Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Shristi Attal on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

06.04.2026

¶19

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned 8^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short learned Tribunal), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 262/2021.

¶20

2

¶21

1. The appellants/claimants had filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation Rs. 35,77,600/- on account of death of their son Ravishankar Sahu in a accident that occurred on 16.07.2020 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. MP-20-HB-4067 driven and owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2.

¶22

1. As per the pleadings in the claim application, the deceased who was employed as a driver of vehicle Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10-X-2187 was going towards Kabirdham and upon reaching village Dullapur, the said vehicle was hit by the offending vehicle I.e. Truck bearing Registration No. MP-20HB-4067 resulting into his death. It was further pleaded that the deceased was employed as a driver and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. Therefore, the above stated, compensation was claimed.

¶23

1. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal and did not file any written statement. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further contended that no documentary evidence had been filed regarding the age, profession, and income of the deceased and that exaggerated compensation had been claimed. It was also pleaded that the owner and insurer of Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10-X-2187 had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. Further, it was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and permit, and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, the Insurance Company was liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation.

¶24

3

¶25

1. The learned Tribunal framed as many as seven issues and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants.

¶26

1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a lower figure despite the evidence establishing that the deceased was employed as a driver of Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10-X-2187 and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. He submits that just compensation has not been awarded and suitable enhancement deserves to be made by this Court.

¶27

1. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence regarding the income of the deceased. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted.

¶28

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

1. The appellants/claimants pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was employed as a driver and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. In their oral testimony, the appellants/claimants reiterated the averments made in the claim application. The appellants/claimants examined AW-2 Veer Prakash Tiwari, who deposed that he is the owner of Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10X-2187 and that the deceased was employed as driver of the said vehicle. He further stated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 14,000/- per month as salary along with Rs. 200/- per week diet money. A salary certificate (Ex. P/9) was also exhibited.

¶30

4

¶31

1. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the salary certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle in which the deceased was employed as a driver can be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of the income of the deceased. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that at the time of the accident, the deceased was driving Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10-X-2187, which was hit by the offending truck, resulting into his death. AW-2 Veer Prakash Tiwari claiming himself to be the owner of the said vehicle, categorically stated that he is the registered owner thereof and that under his instructions, the deceased was going Raipur to Kabirdham carrying vegetables when the offending truck dashed the vehicle. He further deposed that the deceased had been working as a driver under him for five years. Though, the respondent No. 2 tried to dislodge his testimony during the cross-examination that he has not brought any document of his vehicle and try to bring on record that the deceased was holding a light motor vehicle license. It has been further asked that he does not maintain any register with regard to per months salary or diet money.

¶32

1. Upon perusal of the record and the evidence available, it is manifest that the deceased was a skilled driver and was employed by AW-2 as a driver of the Swaraj Mazda vehicle. The driving licence of the deceased has also been brought on record. Ordinarily, in the absence of corroborative material, the Court may not relied upon the solitary salary certificate, however, the factual matrix of the present case stands on a different footing.

¶33

1. Firstly, the deceased died while driving the vehicle in which he was stated to have been employed as a driver. Secondly, the owner of the said vehicle entered the witness box and categorically deposed that the deceased had been employed under him as a driver for the last five years. He also proved the

¶34

5

¶35

salary certificate. This Court, upon online verification details of Mazda bearing Registration No. CG-10-X-2187 finds AW-2 Veer Prakash Tiwari as the registered owner of the vehicle. The said report is taken on record.

¶36

1. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied in safely holding that the deceased was employed as a driver under AW-2. Since the accident occurred on 16.07.2020, and the deceased was a skilled worker/driver, this Court finds the salary certificate showing monthly wages of Rs. 14,000/- to be reliable and acceptable for the purpose of assessment of compensation.

¶37

1. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶38

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	MonthlyIncome of the deceased	14,000/-
2.	Future Prospects@40%	5,600/-
3.	Total Income	19,600/-
4.	Total YearlyIncome	19,600 X12= 2,35,200/-
5.	Personal expenditure(1/2)	2,35,200/2= 1,17,600/-
6.	Net Income	2,35,200- 1,17,600=1,17,600/-
7.	Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency	1,17,600X18= 21,16,800/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Filial consortium	80,000/-(40,000/-each A-1 & A-2)
	Total compensation	Rs. 22,26,800/-

¶39

The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,65,848/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,26,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 16,65,848/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,60,952/-. The

¶40

6

¶41

additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 31.07.2023. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶42

The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, Rs. 2,50,000/- each shall be deposited in the name of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 for a period of a years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, remaining amount shall be paid

¶43

to appellant/claimant No.2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶44

All pending applications are disposed of.

¶45

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶46

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶47

H.Ansari

Dhalgan Sahu v. Aslam Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhalgan Sahu v. Aslam Khan

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. Laxmi Koshle Vs Dinesh Kumar Koshle

Pramod Das Vs Asheshwar Yadav

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhoj Kumar

Vikas Singhal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramashankar Gupta Vs Dilip Paswan

Maina Bai Vs Mahesh Namdev Barapatre