Smt. Ashwani Bai Vs Chumeshwar Lal Sahu

1 - Chumeshwar Lal Sahu S/o Mannu Lal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Devagaon, P. S. Fingeshwar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..........Driver, 2 – (a) Smt. Muna Bai W/o Late Bhuvan Lal Sahu, R/o Village Soth, Parsada, P. S. Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶15

2 – (b) - Shekhar Sahu S/o Bhuvan Lala Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Soth, Parsada, P. S. Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

2 - (c) Laxman Sahu S/o Late Bhuvan Lal Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Soth, Parsada, P. S. Nayapara,

¶17

2 - (d) Nutesh Sahu S/o Late Bhuvan Lal Sahu, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Soth, Parsada, P. S. Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (L.Rs of the owner)

¶18

3 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited 3rd Floor 345-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, G. E. Road, Ring Road Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Insurer) 4 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ravi Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Shop No. 412-413, Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Insurer) ... Respondents

¶19

2

¶20

For Appellant/Claimants	:Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate along with Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent 1	: None.
For Respondents 2(a)to 2(d)	: None
For Respondent 3	: None
For Respondent 4	:Shri Saurabh Gupta appears on behalf of Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.

¶21

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

02/04/2026

¶24

This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,02,000/- passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, C.G. (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.63/2010 vide impugned award dated 03.11.2014. Parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred as per their description before the Claims Tribunal.

¶25

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the accident occurred on 30.03.2010. The deceased by name Arjun Sahu, while coming on motorcycle along with one Toran Sahu, was knocked down to death by the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.C.G.04-DA-2594 (in short, the offending vehicle) and owned by Non-applicant No.2 (since deceased), driven by Non-applicant No.1, which led to the Claim Petition preferred by the appellants / claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- stating, inter alia, that the deceased, aged 26 years, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in the employment of Mamta Yadu’s limestone, stone and floor quarry.

¶26

The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants on various

¶27

3

¶28

grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with Non-applicant No.4/insurer. During pendency of the claim petition, Non-applicant No.2 – Bhuvan Lal Sahu has passed away and his legal representatives were substituted as Non-applicants No.2(a) to 2(d) in his place.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.15,02,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realisation while directing the Non-applicants No.1 & 2 (a) to 2 (d)/respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally, however, exonerating the Nonapplicant No.3 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Non-applicant No.4 – Reliance General Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with them.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the learned claims Tribunal has held the Non-applicants No.1 & 2 liable for payment of compensation, but during the pendency of the claim petition, Non-applicant No.2 – Bhuvan Lal Sahu has passed away and his legal representatives have been brought on record in his place as Non-applicants No.2 (a) to (d). He further submits as per the seizure memo (Ex.P.5), the documents of the offending vehicle have been shown that the offending vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No.4 – Reliance General Insurance Company, therefore, the said insurance company is liable to pay compensation. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards conventional heads whereas it should have

¶31

4

¶32

been Rs.2,30,000/- as per the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that the insurance company, Non-applicant No.4 has already been exonerated as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not found to be insured with it and the liability has been fastened upon Non-applicant No.1 & legal representatives of Non-applicant No.2. He further submits that as per seizure memo (Ex.P.5), although the insurance policy of the offending vehicle has been shown to be seized, but copy of the such insurance policy has not been submitted by the appellants/claimants. He next argues that as per the statement of N.A.W.1 Abhishek Singh, Manager (Legal) of Non-applicant No.4/ Reliance General Insurance Company, he filed two documents, namely, insurance policy (Ex.D.1) and its cover note (Ex.D.2), which shows that the offending vehicle was insured from 08.04.2010 to 07.04.2011, therefore, the offending vehicle was not insured with it on the date of accident, i.e., 30.03.2010. He further submits that the legal heirs of Non-applicant No.2 – Bhuvan Lal Sahu, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation only to the extent of property inherited by them [Non-applicants 2 (a) to 2 (d)] from the deceased-owner and they shall not be personally liable beyond such inherited estate.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the

¶35

5

¶36

parties.

¶37

It is not disputed that the deceased met with vehicular accident. The issue No.1 to the effect that on 30.03.2010, the deceased was knocked down to death by Non-applicant No.1 by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants.

¶38

As per the statement of N.A.W.1, Abhishek Singh, Manager (Legal) of Non-applicant No. 4, Reliance General Insurance Company, the offending vehicle was insured for the period from 08.04.2010 to 07.04.2011, as is evident from the insurance policy (Ex. D-1) and the policy cover note (Ex. D-2) filed by him. It is pertinent to note that neither the driver (Non-applicant No. 1) nor the owner (Non-applicant No. 2) were examined as witnesses, nor did they produce any document regarding the insurance policy. Further, the seizure memo (Ex. P-5) shows the period of insurance of offending vehicle from 22.03.2010 to 21.03.2011 with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited; however, no copy of such insurance policy was produced either by the claimants or by the other respondents/non-applicants. This apart, as mentioned above, Ex.D.1 insurance policy and its cover note Ex.D.2 also shows that the insurance policy was not effective on the date of accident. In addition to above, according to the statement of N.A.W.3, Navin Soni, Legal Executive of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (Non-applicant No. 3), the offending vehicle was not insured with its company on the date of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, rightly held in paragraph 40 of its award that the parties failed to prove that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle

¶39

6

¶40

was insured with either of the insurance companies, namely respondent No. 3 – IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, and respondent No. 4 – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, and accordingly exonerated both the insurance companies.

¶41

Now, so far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is concerned, the Tribunal, on its own, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 (wife of the deceased) and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is on the lower side. However, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents, i.e., five. As appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, she is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellant Nos.2 to 4, being the children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, and appellant No.5, being the mother of the deceased, is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is assessed under these heads in place of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants/appellants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, in place of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/- under the conventional heads, in place of Rs.1,25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In this manner, the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of

¶42

7

¶43

Rs.16,07,000/- in place of Rs.15,02,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,02,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.16,07,000/-, the claimants/appellants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount, along with interest, shall be deposited by Non-applicant No.1 – Chumeshar Lal Sahu (Driver), and the legal representatives of the deceased-owner (Non-applicant No.2), who are arrayed as Nonapplicants No.2(a) to 2(d) in his place. However, with regard to liability of legal heirs of the deceased-owner of the offending vehicle, it is modified and ordered that the legal representatives [Respondents No.2 (a) to 2 (d)] of the deceased-owner/Non-applicant No.2 shall be liable to pay the compensation only to the extent of the property inherited by them from the deceased-owner and they shall not be personally liable beyond that.

¶45

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶48

Anjani

Smt. Ashwani Bai v. Chumeshwar Lal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ashwani Bai v. Chumeshwar Lal 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shahjad Ali

Shriram Associates Vs Pandey Brothers

Virendra Paras Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Bhatiya Vs Kunjlal Dadsena

The Oriental Insurance Comapny Limited Vs Kanakdei (Died and Deleted)

Smt. Shipra Babbar Vs Kunjlal Dadsena