1 / 10
2024:CGHC:33278
Digitally signed
by AKHILESH
NAFR
BEOHAR
Date: 2024.09.03
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
11:13:21 +0530
MAC No. 208 of 2016
• United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 2nd Floor,
Gurukripa Tower, Opposite Amber Auto Mobiles, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur
Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant
versus
1. Ramkishore Maravi, S/o Chandarshan Maravi, aged about 35 Years, R/o
Yadav Road Lines, Raipur Road, Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle Truck No. CG04/JA/3783)
2. Santosh Yadav, S/o Shri R.S.Yadav, R/o Yadav Road Lines, Raipur
Road, Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
(Owner of Vehicle Truck No. CG04/JA/3783)
3. Surendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Hari Ram Sahu, aged about 24 Years,
R/o Chichirda, P.S. Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
MAC No. 14 of 2016
• United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 2nd Floor,
Gurukripa Tower, Opposite Amber Auto Mobiles, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,
Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ramkishore Maravi, S/o Chandarshan Maravi, aged about 35 Years, R/o
Yadav Road Lines, Raipur Road, Parsada, P. S. Chakarbhatha, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle Truck No. CG 04- JA-3783)
2 / 10
2. Santosh Yadav, S/o Shri R. S. Yadav, R/o Yadav Road Lines, Raipur
Road, Parsada, P. S. Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
(Owner of Vehicle Truck No. CG04- JA-3783)
3. Smt. Santoshi Devi Thakur, Wd/o Late Prahlad Singh, aged about 31
Years,
4. Kumari Uma Thakur, D/o Late Prahlad Singh, aged about 15 Years,
5. Mukund Singh Thakur, S/o Late Prahlad Singh, aged about 13 Years,
6. Kumari Prapti Thakur, D/o Late Prahlad Singh, aged about 3 Years,
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are minors represented through their Valli
Mother Smt. Santoshi Devi Thakur, Wd/o Late Prahlad Singh Thakur,
aged about 31 Years)
7. Janak Singh Thakur, S/o Late Rambharos Singh, aged about 65 Years
8. Rukhmani Thakur, W/o Janak Singh Thakur, aged about 62 Years,
Nos. 3 to 8 all are R/o Tikari Para, Takhatpur, P. S. and Tahsil Takhatpur,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Insurer : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Claimants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate.
For Owner and Driver : Notice upon them dispensed with vide
order dated 30.07.2024
Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,
Judgment on Board
30/08/2024
1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out
of same accident that took place on 23.09.2013, therefore, they are
being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In MAC No.14/2016, Respondents No.3 to 8 / have also filed cross
objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging the quantum part.
3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 23.09.2013, deceased-
Prahlad Sngh Thakur and injured- Surendra Kumar Sahu, were going to
Takhatpur on motorcycle. However, on way, near Bilaspur-Takhapur
main road, the said motorcycle dashed the stationed truck bearing
registration No.CG04-JA-3783 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle)
3 / 10
from back side, which was parked by non-applicant No.1 Ramkishore
Maravi, driver of the offending vehicle, in a public place in a negligent
manner without giving any signal or indicator, as a result of which,
deceased- Prahlad Singh Thakur sustained grievous injuries over his
body and died on the spot, whereas injured- Surendra Kumar Sahu also
sustained grievous injuries over his body. At the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 Santosh Yadav and
insured with non-applicant No.3/United India Insurance Company
Limited.
4. On account of death of deceased- Prahlad Singh Thakur, a claim
petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,73,000/- inter
alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased- Prahlad Singh
Thakur was aged about 34 years & earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
working in District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur as Class-IV permanent
employee. However, the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bilaspur, C.G. in Claim Case No.34/2014 vide award dated
23.09.2015, awarded a compensation of Rs.28,33,945/- to the claimants
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till
its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to
3 jointly and severally.
Likewise, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant-Surendara
Kumar Sahu, a claim petition was filed by him under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,15,000/-
inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, injured- Surendra Kumar
Sahu was aged about 24 years & earning Rs.9,000/- per month by
working as Mason under the contractor of PWD. However, the learned
4 / 10
3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, C.G. in Claim
Case No.362/2014 vide award dated 23.09.2015, awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,55,523/- to the injured-Surendra Kumar Sahu with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its
realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3
jointly and severally.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals
submits that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company, whereas rider of the motorcycle/deceased was
himself responsible for causing the accident because at the time of
accident, rider of motorcycle- deceased Prahlad Singh Thakur, after
consuming liquor, was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently and
he himself dashed the offending vehicle, as is evident from the PM
report. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
compensation and it is prayed that Insurance Company be exonerated
from its liability. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Rani & Ors
vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in (2009) 13 SCC 654. In
MAC No.14/2016, counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that
the Tribunal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.14,178/- per month as shown in Ex.A-9C (pay bill for the month of
August), has erred in adding Rs.50/-, which ought not to be added as
the same was being paid to the deceased towards washing allowance.
Therefore, it is prayed that monthly income of the deceased needs to be
reassessed suitably. He further submits that the amounts awarded by
the Tribunal towards other heads are also on higher side, which needs
to be reduced suitably.
5 / 10
6. By way of cross-appeal, learned counsel for the claimants in MAC
No.14/2016 sought enhancement of compensation and submits that the
amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on lower
side, which needs to be reassessed suitably. Reliance has been placed
on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of & Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
8. So far as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Prahlad
Singh Thakur is concerned, AW-4 Surendra Kumar Sahu, injured eye-
witness to the accident, has stated that on the date of accident, near
Bilaspur-Thakurpur main road, driver of the offending/non-applicant
No.1 had parked the offending vehicle in a negligent manner without
giving any signal or indicator, as a result of which, the said motorcycle
rode by the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from back side, due
to which, he and deceased sustained grievous injuries and deceased-
Prahlad Singh Thakur died on the spot. In cross-examination, he
remained firm with respect to the fact that offending vehicle was parked
without any signal or indicator and denied the suggestion that at the time
of accident, he and deceased were in drunken condition. On the
contrary, driver of the offending vehicle was examined as NAW-2, who
has stated that on the date of accident, tyre of offending vehicle was got
punctured, therefore, he had parked the offending vehicle on the road
side. He has further stated that while changing the tyre of the offending
vehicle, one wheel was on the unpaved road, whereas the other was on
the paved road and the indicator light was on. He has also stated that
6 / 10
rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent
manner and he himself dashed the offending vehicle. In cross-
examination, he admitted that due to accident, Takhatpur police
registered an offence against him. He further admitted that when the
offending vehicle was parked, front and rear wheels of driver side were
on road side, whereas half portion of the offending vehicle was on the
other side of the road. It is also admitted by him that no report was
lodged by him against the deceased for his alleged negligence. He also
admitted that he is unable to tell as to whether the rider of motorcycle
was in drunken condition or not as he ran away from the spot.
9. Thus, from perusal of statements of injured/eye-witness- Surendra
Kumar Sahu and that of NAW-2 Ramkishore Maravi, Driver of offending
vehicle, it is clear that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was
parked by non-applicant No.2 in a negligent manner without any signal
or indicator, due to which, accident occurred. Moreover, after the
accident, final report (Ex.A-1) has been submitted against the driver of
the offending vehicle / non-applicant No.2 under Sections 279, 337, 338
& 304-A of IPC which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle/non-
applicant No.2 is responsible for the accident as he had parked the
offending vehicle in a public place without giving any signal or indicator.
Furthermore, there is no counter complaint lodged by the driver of the
offending vehicle/non-applicant No.2 for his false implication and that no
evidence was brought on record by him that the rider of motorcycle was
negligent for causing the accident. Though, the Insurance Company has
taken a plea that the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent and
contributed to the accident, but no evidence in this regard has been
adduced by the Insurance Company to substantiate its pleading. This
7 / 10
apart, PM report shows that smell of alcohol was found over the body of
deceased and blood samples were also preserved, sealed and labeled
and handed over to police constable for alcoholic examination, but no
such evidence nor any report has been brought on record to show that
how much quantity of liquor, the deceased had consumed at the time of
accident. Therefore, in absence of such evidence, it is difficult to hold
that deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident.
Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company
in this regard is hereby rejected.
10. Now, this Court has to examine whether the driver of the offending
vehicle while parking the offending vehicle was required to following the
traffic rules.
11. Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:-
“122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position.- No person
in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the
vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at
rest on any public place in such a position or in such a
condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely
to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to
other users of the public place or to the passengers.”
12. Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as hereunder:
“109. Parking light.- Every construction equipment
vehicle and every motor vehicle other than motorcycle
and three-wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided
with one white or amber parking light on each side in the
front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights
one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front
and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the
vehicle is kept stationary on the road...”
13. By a combined reading of Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
Rule 109 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is clear that the front
and rear parking lights shall remain lit even if the vehicle is kept stationary
on the road. Admittedly, in the instant case, driver of the offending vehicle
8 / 10
had not switched on the parking lights and it was parked in a public place
in a negligent manner as is evident from final report (Ex.A-1) and the
evidence of AW-4 Surendra Kumar Sahu, eye-witness to the accident.
Therefore, it is clear that there is negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle in parking the offending vehicle without switching on
the parking lights to enable the passers-by to know that such a vehicle
has been parked on the road. Thus, considering the evidence brought on
record, the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which
the accident occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was
justified in fastening the liability upon the non-applicants No.1 to 3 jointly
and severally. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the Insurance Company and the principles of law laid down
therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the
aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the
Insurance Company.
14. As regards the income of the deceased- Prahlad Singh Thakur (in MAC
No.14/2016), admittedly the deceased was working as Class-IV
permanent employee in District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur and his
gross salary was shown to be Rs.14,178/- per month including basic pay
Rs.6,410/-, grade pay Rs.1,300/-, dearness allowance Rs.6,168/-, CCA
Rs.50/-, medical allowance Rs.200/- and washing allowance Rs.50/-, as
is evident from the copy of pay bill for the month of August, 2013 of
deceased (Ex.A-9C) and considering the particulars mentioned in pay bill
(Ex.A-9C), the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.14,178/- per month as shown in the pay bill of August, 2013 which
includes Rs.50/- towards washing allowance, which in my view, cannot
be considered for assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore,
9 / 10
considering the statement of AW-3 Santosh Dewangan, Assistant
Accountant coupled with the pay bill of deceased Ex.A-9C and after
deducting Rs.50/- towards washing allowance from the gross salary, I
propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the salary
of the deceased at Rs.14,128/- per month i.e. Rs.1,69,536/- per annum.
Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs
Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in
the following manner:-
Sl. Heads Calculation
No. (in rupees)
01. Income of the deceased- Rs.1,69,536/- per annum
Prahlad Singh Thakur @
Rs.14,128/- per month
02. 50% of (i) above to be added Rs.84,768/-
towards future prospects. (as Rs.1,69,536/- + Rs.84,768=
applied by the Tribunal) Rs.2,54,304/-
03. Multiplier of 15 to be applied Rs.2,54,304/- x 15
(as applied by the Tribunal) Rs.38,14,560/-
04. 1/4 deduction towards personal Rs.9,53,640/-
and living expenses of the Rs.38,14,560/- – Rs.9,53,640/- =
deceased looking to the Rs.28,60,920/-
dependency upon the
deceased i.e. 6
05. Towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/-
funeral expenses
06. Towards loss of consortium to Rs.2,40,000/-
claimants, who are 6 in
number, (Rs.40,000/- each)
Total Compensation Rs.31,30,920/-
Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.28,33,945/- after
deducting the same from Rs.31,30,920/-, the claimants (in MAC
10 / 10
No.14/2016) are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,96,975/-
which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the
total amount of compensation and interest shall be disbursed to the
claimants (respondent Nos. 3 to 8), who are six in number, as arrayed in
MAC No.14/2016 in equal ratio. After deposit of the amount of
compensation before the claims Tribunal, the Tribunal shall disburse the
amount amongst all the claimants (respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in MAC
No.14/2016) in the above mentioned ratio, however, the payment of
compensation to be paid to the said claimants through Bank transaction /
Account Payee Cheque, amount to be invested as fixed deposit in a
Nationalized Bank and also the period of fixed deposit are to be
determined by the learned claims Tribunal. The impugned award stands
modified to the above extent.
16. In the result, MAC No.208/2016 filed by the Insurance Company, being
without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas
appeal (MAC No.14/2016) filed by the Insurance Company and cross-
appeal filed by the claimants in it are allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein above.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh