Chattisgarh High Court
Magma H.D.I. Gen. Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Savitri Bai on 27 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28700
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2135 of 2019
1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.4,
Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda, P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Mohit Sahu S/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother
And Natural Guardian (Appl. No.1), R/o Ward No.4, Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda,
P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ku. Roushni W/o Lt. Santosh Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Mother
And Natural Guardian (Appl. No.1), R/o Ward No.4, Guru Ghanshidas Nagar, Tilda,
P.S. Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........(Applicants), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
1 - Vyashnarayan Chakradhari S/o Madanlal R/o Sant Kanear Ram Ward No.3,
Nevera, Village Jewara, P.S.- Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver
Of Truck No. C.G.-04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ramesh Sharma S/o Lt. Gulabchand Sharma R/o House No. 187, Gandhi Ward
Nevera, P.S.- Nevera, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............(Owner Of Truck No.
C.G. 04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Magma H.D.E. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge/competent
Officer Magma H.D.E. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office No. 501 And 509-12, 5th
Floor, D.B. City, Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan,
Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.
04-Zd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 MAC No. 1670 of 2018 1 - Magma H.D.I. Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. Through In-Charge Officer/competent Officer Magma H.D.I. Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. Office No. 501 And 509-12, 5th Floor, D.B. City, Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Blocj No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............(Insurer Of Truck No. Cg-04-Jd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Savitri Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............ (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohit Sahu S/o Late Dhaniram Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Minor Hence Representing His Mother Smt. Savitri Bai, R/o Ward No. 4, Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Roshni D/o Late Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor Hence Representing Her Mother Smt. Savitri Bai, R/o Ward No. 4, Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Tilda, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vyasnarayan Chakradhari S/o Madanlal R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward No. 3, Neora, Thana Neora, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Truck No. Cg-04-Jd- 2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramesh Sharma S/o Late Gulabchand Sharma R/o House No. 187, Gandhi Ward, Neora, Thana Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. Cg-
04-Jd-2860), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
MAC No. 2135/2019
For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate MAC No. 1670/2018 For Appellant : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. F.S.Khare, Advocate 3 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 27/06/2025
1. As both the appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and another by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened upon it, arising out the same award dated 24.07.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No 73/2016, both the appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 19.07.2015 at about 06:30 A.M., one truck bearing registration no. CG 04 ZD 2860 driven by the Non- Applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently met with an accident and over turned. In the said accident, Sita Sahu who was standing on the side of the road came under the truck and died on spot. The claimants being daughter-in-law and grand children of the deceased have filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 14,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was doing the business of vegetable seller and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 (i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle) submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts pleaded in the claim application and further pleaded that on the date of accident, the Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessed with valid and 4 effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with the Non- Applicant No. 3.
3. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted its reply objecting to the factual pleadings made in the claim application more particularly, with regard to the nature of occupation and income pleaded in the claim application. It is also pleaded that the vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy as there is no valid permit and fitness of vehicle and further, that the driver was not possessed with the valid and effective driving license.
4. The Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties have allowed the claim application in part and recorded a finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Occupation and income of the deceased was not found proved. The accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Non-Applicant No. 1, allowed the claim application in part while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,17,200/- to the claimants, fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and severally to satisfy the award.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants would submit that the motor accidental death of deceased Sita Sahu is not in dispute.. He however, further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month observing that the occupation of the deceased was of Garbage Collector considering the statement recorded by police of one of the witnesses. He contended that merely production of the document prepared by 5 police will in itself not a proof of contents thereof, unless and until it is proved in accordance with law. He next contended that even if the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the decease, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the occupation and nature of work of the deceased to be one of the Unskilled Labourer and could have assessed the income taking note of the wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevailing at the time of accident. He also pointed out that the amount of compensation awarded on other conventional heads is also on lower side.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant/claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. She further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal even after recording a finding that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed with a Learner's License decided the issue of breach of policy conditions in negative overlooking Rule 3 of Rules, 1989. Referring to Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1989), it is submitted that a person holding a Learner's License of a particular class of vehicle can drive the said vehicle subject to compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. While driving the vehicle by the person holding the Learner's License, one person should mandatorily accompanied with the person driving the vehicle.
7. In the case at hand, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has not brought any evidence or pleadings in this regard. Leaned Claims 6 Tribunal has erroneously referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and Ors. reported in (1996) AIR 1150 and the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1531 has decided the issue whether the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions at the time of accident in negative. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous, hence, it be set- aside and the Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability under the policy. She submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is on that very ground, hence, the said appeal be allowed.
8. Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the owner and driver would oppose the submission of both the counsels. Firstly, he submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference. While refuting the submissions of the counsel for the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company would submit that the police during the course of investigation seized the copy of Learner's License from possession of the owner along with other relevant documents. The Insurance Company was aware with regard to the type of license which was seized from the possession of the Non- Applicant No. 2/owner and the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver. The Learner's License issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988) is valid, unless and until, it is proved that the license seized or produced is fake. No such evidence is available on record and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in 7 recording a finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove the breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case.
10. I will consider the grounds raised in the appeal i.e. MAC No. 1670/2018 filed by the Insurance Company with respect to the breach of conditions of the insurance policy first.
11. It is not in dispute that after accident, police seized the documents including the license of the Non-Applicant No. 1 from possession of the Non-Applicant No. 2 owner of the offending vehicle. In the seizure memo, there is mention that the police seized the Learner's License in the name of Non-Applicant No. 1 which was effective from 22.01.2015 to 21.07.2015 issued from the Regional Transport Office, District - Raipur. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle has not disputed the fact that at the time of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing the Learner's License. On the date of accident 19.07.2015, the Learner's License was effective.
12. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle after receipt of notice from the learned Claims Tribunal has caused their appearance, submitted reply to the claim application in which, they have only pleaded that the Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license. The Learner's License is issued under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1988. Chapter 2 of the Rules, 1989 deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. It provides as to how the person holding the effective Learner's License can drive the class of vehicles as mentioned therein. Under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules, 1989 there is clear mention that the persons holding effective Learner's 8 License to be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle and such an instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh (Supra) has considered the effect of the Learner's License and observed thus:-
"93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not "duly licensed"
resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act..
94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also 9 granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage ."
14. In para 94, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of a statue, an attempt must be made to give effect to all the provision under the Rule. Copy of the Insurance Policy is also available on record which is valid from 17.10.2014 till 15.06.2015. Under the column of persons or classes of persons entitled to drive and under the column of goods carriage, it has further mentioned that any person including insured can drive the vehicle, provided that such person, holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's License may drive the vehicle when not use for the transport of passengers at the time of accident and that such person satisfy the requirements of the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989.
15. The insurance policy issued by the company in favour of the insured is a contract between the two, the policy was issued with a condition that if the vehicle is being driven by a person holding the effective Learner's License, then, there must be compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. In the case at hand, the owner of the offending vehicle 10 was well aware of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the driving license issued under Section 10 (1), but was holding Learner's License issued under Section 8 as the Learner's License was seized from his possession. However, he did not take care of the compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989.
16. For the aforementioned, provision under the Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in shifting the burden upon the Insurance Company to prove that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. In absence of any pleading on the part of Non-Applicants No.1 & 2, the driver and owner that at the time of accident, the person possessing the effective license issued under Section 10 (1) is sitting beside the driver holding the Learner's License, onus will not shift upon the insurance company to prove otherwise.
17. So far as the appeal bearing MAC No. 2135/2019 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, the counsel for the appellant/claimants has made two fold submissions. First, with regard to the assessment of income on lower side and second, meagre award of compensation awarded on other conventional heads.
18. So far as the first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that the income has been assessed on lower side is concerned, perusal of the records of the claim case would show that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased to be vegetable seller, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as pleaded by placing admissible piece of evidence in the record before Claims Tribunal. 11 Even, there is no specific evidence and proof in record with regard to the nature of occupation of the deceased to be of Garbage Collector. In absence of proof of nature of occupation and the income of the deceased, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed on notional basis, considering the factors like the price index, cost of living, wage structure and may also take the help of the minimum- wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The learned Claims Tribunal could also have taken note of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act,1948. In the record, there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of residence of the deceased and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the nature of occupation of the deceased as Unskilled Labourer and assessing the income of the deceased taking the help of the minimum- wages which is Rs. 5787/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.
19. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 10% of the assessed income towards the future prospects, made deduction of 1/3rd and applied multiplier of 11 which does not call for any interference. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium. The Appellant/Claimants No. 1 is the daughter- in-law and is entitled for loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. It is ordered accordingly. 12
20. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
21. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,787/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 55 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 10% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,362.7/- (5787+575.7). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.76,352.4/- (6,362.7 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.50,901.6/- (76,352.4 - 25450.8). By applying multiplier of 11, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,59,917.6/- (50,901.6 x 11). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
22. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,29,917.6/- (5,59,917.6 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
23. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
13
24. In the result, the appeal MAC No. 2135/2019 filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing MAC No. 1670/2018 is dismissed.
25. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey