Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Copany Ltd. Raipur Vs Smt. Janki Bai Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2023 of 2018 Reserved On 18.11.2025

¶5

Delivered On15/01/2026

¶6

1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Copany Ltd. Raipur Simiran Towers Opposite Lic Regional Office, Near Pandri Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Insurer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Janki Bai Sahu W/o Late Shriram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Banur, P.S. Benur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yogendra Sahu S/o Late Shriram Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Banur, P.S. Benur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Smt. Aasha Sahu W/o Yagendra Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Banur, P.S. Benur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Ku. Kushi Sahu D/o Yogendra Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Her Father Yogendra Sahu, R/o Village Banur, P.S. Benur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2

¶13

5 - Aayatu Ram S/o Dasuram, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gavanji, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.................Driver, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Assistant Commissioner, Aadivasi Viksa Vibhag, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.............Owner, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

8 - Secretary, Ramkrishan Aashram Mission Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

9 - Bastar Travels, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Respondent(s)

¶19

MAC No. 1931 of 2018

¶20

1 - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Raipur Simiran Towers Opposite Lic Regional Office, Near Pandri Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........Insurer., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

--- Petitioner(s)

¶22

Versus

¶23

1 - Gurudatt Nishad S/o Late Govardhan Nishad Aged About 50 Years R/o Forest Colony Bangalapara, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimant., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - Smt. Usha Bai Nishad S/o Gurudatt Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Forest Colony Bangalapara, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

3

¶26

3 - Manoj S/o Gurudatt Nishad Aged About 18 Years R/o Forest Colony Bangalapara, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

4 - Aayatu Ram S/o Dasuram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gavanji, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ............Driver., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

5 - Assistant Commissioner Aadivasi Vikas Vibhag, Nayaranpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. .........Owner, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

7 - Secretary Ramkrishan Aashram Mission Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

8 - Bastar Travels Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

--- Respondent(s)

¶33

MAC No. 2023 of 2018

¶34

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 4	: Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Koshtha, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 & 7	: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.8	: Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate on behalf of mr. yashwant Thakur, Advocate
Respondent No.9	: Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate
Respondent No.5	: None.

¶35

MAC No. 1931 of 2018

¶36

For Petitioner(s)

¶37

: Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶38

4

¶39

For Respondents No.1 to 4	: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 & 6	: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.7	: Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate
For Respondent No.8	: Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate
For Respondent No.4	: None.

¶40

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶41

C A V Order

¶42

These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the awards dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos.06/2016 & 20/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹5,61,000/- & ₹41,61,575/- respectively with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition from the date of its filing.

¶43

Facts of MAC No. 2023 of 2018 :- in nutshell, are that on 23.11.2015 while travelling in Bus No. CG 04 E 1003. It was alleged that when the bus reached near Shivni Road, Bus No. CG 02 4721, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with it, causing grievous injuries to the deceased and other passengers, ultimately resulting in his death during treatment. The claimants, being the deceased’s wife, married son, daughterin-law and granddaughter, asserted that the deceased, aged about 61 years, was employed with CSPDCL and earning Rs.

¶44

5

¶45

67,025 per month, and that they were dependent on him; accordingly, they sought compensation of Rs. 53,94,000 under various heads. The appellant was granted permission under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all grounds available to the owner and driver. The non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 filed their reply denying all adverse allegations and contending instead that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Bus No. CG 04 E 1003, a stand also supported by nonapplicant No. 4, who denied negligence on the part of the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721. The appellant, in its reply, disputed the claimants’ pleadings and asserted that the driver of the insured vehicle lacked a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, amounting to a wilful breach of policy conditions; it was further alleged that the vehicle was being plied in a public place without a valid permit, constituting a violation of both the policy terms and the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby absolving the appellant of liability. It was additionally contended that the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721 was solely negligent and that a criminal case had been registered against him, rendering the claim under Section 166 unsustainable. However, the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the pleadings, facts, documents and evidence on record, held that the driver of the insured vehicle was equally responsible for the accident and fastened 50% liability on the appellant without cogent or reliable evidence, leading to the present appeal.

¶46

6

¶47

Facts of MAC No.1931 of 2018 :- on 23.11.2015, alleging that while the deceased was driving the insured Bus No. CG 04 E 1003 and had reached near Shivni Road, Bus No. CG 02 4721, driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with it, causing grievous injuries to the deceased and other passengers, and resulting in his death during treatment; asserting that the deceased was employed as a driver of the insured bus earning Rs. 310 per day and that they were dependent on him, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 23,87,000. The appellant obtained permission under Section 170 of the Act to contest the case on all grounds available to the owner and driver. Nonapplicants Nos. 2 and 3 filed their reply denying all allegations and contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased driver of Bus No. CG 04 E 1003, a stand also taken by non-applicant No. 4, who denied negligence on the part of the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721. The appellant, in its reply, denied the claimants’ averments and asserted that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, amounting to a wilful breach of policy conditions; it was further pleaded that the insured vehicle was being plied in a public place without a valid permit, in violation of the policy and the Act, and that the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721 was solely responsible for the accident, a criminal case having also been registered against him, thereby rendering the claim under Section 166 unsustainable. The Tribunal, however, without properly

¶48

7

¶49

appreciating the pleadings, evidence and material on record, held that the deceased driver was equally responsible for the accident and fastened 50% liability upon the appellant despite the fact that if the deceased himself was negligent, the appellant could not have been held liable, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

¶50

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for the appellant in MAC No.2023 of 2018 submits that the criminal case records clearly establish that the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721 was solely negligent in the accident of 23.11.2015, as Crime No. 112/2015 was registered against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC, yet the Tribunal erroneously held both drivers equally negligent. It is further argued that the Tribunal committed serious errors in computing compensation by applying a multiplier of 7 despite the deceased being 61 years old and only one year away from superannuation, by treating all four claimants as dependents though claimants Nos. 2 to 4 were major and not dependent on the deceased, and by deducting only one-fourth for personal expenses instead of one-half or one-third. Counsel also contends that the Tribunal failed to deduct applicable income tax from the deceased’s annual income of Rs. 7,80,300, contrary to the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 that compensation must be assessed on income net of tax.

¶51

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for the appellant in MAC No.1931 of 2018 submits that the criminal case records clearly

¶52

8

¶53

show that the driver of Bus No. CG 02 4721 was solely responsible for the accident of 23.11.2015, as Crime No. 112/2015 was registered against him for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC, yet the Tribunal wrongly held both drivers equally negligent. It is further argued that the claim under Section 166 was not maintainable against the appellant once the Tribunal itself found that the deceased driver, Jitendra Nishad, was 50% negligent, as a tortfeasor’s legal heirs cannot maintain a faultliability claim against the insurer. Consequently, fastening 50% liability upon the appellant despite attributing 50% negligence to the deceased is perverse, and the apportionment of liability recorded in Para 20 warrants interference.

¶54

Learned counsel for the claimants in both the appeal submits that the the Learned Tribunal is erroneous, unjust, and contrary to the settled principles governing the determination of just compensation, inasmuch as the Tribunal has assessed an unrealistically low income despite the evidence on record and has failed to grant future prospects as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in binding precedents, thereby causing a substantial reduction in the compensation legally payable to the claimants. The Tribunal has further erred in applying an incorrect multiplier and in awarding meagre amounts under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of

¶55

9

¶56

amenities. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and falls short of the statutory requirement of being just, fair, and reasonable. Accordingly, the claimants humbly pray that this Court may be pleased to enhance the compensation by reassessing the income, applying the correct multiplier, granting future prospects, and suitably revising all relevant heads in the interest of justice.

¶57

Learned counsel for the other respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. He further supports the findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment, submitting that the award passed by the Tribunal is just, proper, and in accordance with law, and therefore does not warrant any enhancement.

¶58

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection and particularly the order impugned.

¶59

The Tribunal carefully examined the evidence regarding the collision and the circumstances of the accident. While the appellant relies on criminal case records, it is well settled that civil liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is independent of criminal liability, and the Tribunal is not bound by conclusions in a criminal case. Evidence on record supports the Tribunal’s finding that both vehicles contributed to the accident. Accordingly, there is no

¶60

10

¶61

reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s apportionment of 50% liability to the appellant.

¶62

The appeals preferred by the appellant Insurance Company are devoid of merit. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal regarding liability and would justify interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶63

So far as the issue of enhancement of compensation in MAC No. 2023 of 2018 is concerned, it is observed that the income of the deceased has been rightly considered by the Tribunal after appreciating the documentary evidence. The deceased was employed as a Linesman with Chhattisgarh Electricity Transmission Company, Narayanpur, and the claimants’ claim regarding his income is supported by proper documents. The Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 88,261/-, and after statutory and other deductions, the net monthly income was Rs. 67,025/-. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly awarded loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 40,96,575/-. However, the Tribunal has erred in the assessment of compensation under other heads. In the opinion of this Court, the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at Rs. 40,000/-, with an enhancement of 10% every three years as per prevailing legal standards, amounting to Rs. 48,000/-. Further, under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, applying

¶64

11

¶65

the same principle of 10% enhancement every three years, the compensation is computed at Rs. 18,000/- for each head.

¶66

Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶67

Sn.	Heads	Calculation
1.	Loss of Dependency	Rs.40,96,575/-
2.	Loss of Consortium (with	Rs.1,92,000/-
	increase of 10% in every
	threeyears)Rs.48,000/- x 4
3.	Loss of Estate	Rs.18,000/-
4.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.18,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs.43,24,575/-

¶68

Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.43,24,575/- from Rs.41,61,575/- . Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,63,000/- , which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶69

So far as the issue of enhancement of compensation in MAC No. 2023 of 2018 is concerned, it is observed that no witness was examined to prove the income of the deceased through documentary evidence. Therefore, the income claimed by the claimants, based on the documents annexed, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal rightly erred in assessing the income of the deceased by applying the Minimum Wages Act, determining it to be ₹4,500/- per month which has to be Rs.5,860/- as the date

¶70

12

¶71

of accident is 23.11.2015. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has also erred in not applying 40% of the future prospects towards income of the deceased and also the claimants are entitled for consortium compensation of ₹40,000, with an increase of 10% every three years as per prevailing legal standards, which amounts to ₹48,000. Additionally, under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, applying the same 10% increase every three years, the compensation is computed at ₹18,000 each.

¶72

Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶73

Sn.	Heads	Calculation
No.
1.	Annual Income of deceased	Rs.70,320/-(5,860 x 12)
2.	Future Prospect 40%	Rs. 70,320/- x 40% = Rs.28,128/-
3.	Total Income of the Deceased	Rs.98,448/-
4.	Deduction of Personal Expenses 1/2	Rs.98,448/- - Rs.49,224 (½) = Rs.49,224/-
5.	Multiplier of 18	Rs.49,224 x 18 = Rs.8,86,032/-
6.	Loss of Consortium (with increase of 10% in every threeyears)	Rs.48,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	Rs.18,000/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.18,000/-
	Total compensation :	Rs.10,66,032/-

¶74

Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to

¶75

13

¶76

Rs.10,66,032/- from Rs.5,61,000/- . Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.5,05,032/- , which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶77

The cross-objections filed by the claimants in both appeals (MAC No. 2023 of 2018 and MAC No. 1931 of 2018) are allowed in part . The awards dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos. 06/2016 and 20/2016 stand modified to the extent indicated above. The appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed . All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s awards remain unaltered.

¶78

The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing regarding the enhanced amount .

¶79

		Sd (Amitendra K JU	/- Sd/- ishore Prasad) DGE
The date when	The date when	The date when	the judgment is
the judgment is	the judgment is	uploaded on the w	ebsite.
reserved	pronounced
		Operative	Full
18/11/2025	15/01/2026	15/01/2026	15/01/2026

¶80

Saxena

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Copany Ltd. Raipur v. Smt. Janki Bai Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Copany Ltd. Raipur v. Smt. Janki Bai Sahu

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

Narayan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rosan Giri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balkeshwar Kujur Vs Silas Sai

Chaitram Markam Vs Union of India

Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs Smt. Seema Gidodiya

Siyawati Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited