Birjhuram Vs Munnalal Chouhan

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17456

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 2069 of 2024

¶6

1 - Birjhuram S/o Bisahuram Koumarya Aged About 50 Years R/o Permanent Address Village Kanjeli, P.O. Singhola, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Smt. Sultana Bai Koumarya W/o Birjhuram Koumarya Aged About 49 Years R/o Permanent Address Village Kanjeli, P.O- Singhola, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Munnalal Chouhan S/o Rajendra Chauhan Through In Charge Officer, Address 1- Abhishek Roadways, Rawabhantha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Address 2- Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawabhantha, Banjari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04-M.C.-6063)

¶11

2 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Shivshankar Prasad Through Abhishek Roadways, Rawabhantha (Near Banjari Mandir) Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04-M.C.6063)

¶12

3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager (Division No. -1), United India Insurance Company Ltd., AddressKachahri Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04-M.C.-6063)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board

¶17

16/04/2026

¶18

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 673/2019, whereby a sum of Rs. 15,35,724/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of the death of deceased Balwant Koumarya in a motor accident that occurred on 06.05.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CG-04MC-6063 by respondent No. 1 (driver). The said vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and was allegedly insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶19

2. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased, Balwant Koumarya, was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.-04L.U.-1207 at a normal speed to purchase vegetables from Bhatapara Market. When he reached near Tarenga High School, a truck bearing registration No. C.G.-04-M.C.-6063, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and violently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell from the motorcycle, sustained

¶20

3

¶21

grievous injuries, and died on the spot. An F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, vide Crime No. 177/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. As per the pleadings, the deceased, aged about 27 years, was working as a bore machine truck driver and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 33,10,000/-.

¶22

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement.

¶23

4. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time; that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; and that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate. The policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was obtained on payment through a cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured; consequently, the policy stood cancelled and became void ab initio.

¶24

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues. Issue No. 2 was framed with regard to violation of the terms of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration, held that the offending vehicle was not insured with

¶25

4

¶26

respondent No. 3. The remaining issues were decided in favour of the claimants, and compensation of Rs. 15,35,724/- was awarded.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that just compensation has not been awarded and that the same deserves to be suitably enhanced.

¶28

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that, in view of the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper, and the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable. It is further submitted that, since the vehicle was not insured, the liability has rightly been fastened upon respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶29

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record.

¶30

9. The date of accident is 06.05.2019. As per the pleadings, the deceased was working as a driver of a bore machine truck and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month; however, no documentary evidence in support of income is available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,830/- on the basis of minimum wages. Thereafter, 40% was added towards future prospects, enhancing the income to Rs. 13,762/- per month. After deducting one-half towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the monthly contribution to the family was assessed at Rs. 6,881/-,

¶31

5

¶32

which comes to Rs. 82,572/- annually. By applying the multiplier of 17, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,03,724/- under the head of loss of dependency. Further, a sum of Rs. 96,000/towards filial consortium (Rs. 48,000/- × 2), Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs. 18,000/- towards funeral expenses were awarded, totaling Rs. 1,32,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation awarded is Rs. 15,35,724/-.

¶33

10. In the opinion of this Court, the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence, appears to be just and reasonable and is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd . vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , (2017) 16 SCC 680. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

11. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE

¶37

Jyoti,

Birjhuram v. Munnalal Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birjhuram v. Munnalal Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Bhawant

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kumari Bai

Tishant Sinha Vs Rakesh Bhola

Raso Bai Darro Vs Ritu Netam

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Jaimani Baghel

Urmila Vs Tularam