Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Bafna vs Santram on 2 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:44794
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 713 of 2019
Ajay Bafna S/o Late Foolchand Bafna Aged About 51 Years R/o Pach
Quarter, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---
(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 07/c-8701).
--- Appellant / Owner
versus
1 - Santram S/o Late Abhayram Nirmalkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Sakin
Khapara Bhatti, Thana - Azad Chowk, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----
(Claimants),
2 - Sujata W/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 44 Years R/o Sakin Khapara
Bhatti, Thana - Azad Chowk, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ku. Sarita D/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 17 Years Represented By
Natural Guardian Father Santram Nirmalkar, R/o Sakin Khapara Bhatti,
Thana - Azad Chowk, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Indradev S/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 15 Years Represented By
Natural Guardian Father Santram Nirmalkar, R/o Sakin Khapara Bhatti,
Thana - Azad Chowk, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sohan Lal S/o Banshilal Sahu R/o Sajoli, P.S. - Ranchirai, District - Balod
Chhattisgarh.
6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch-
1, Kachari Chowk, Jail Road, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
{Cause title, taken from Case Information System} For Appellant /: Mr. Mayank Kumar and Mr. Samarth Singh owner Marhas, Advocates For Res. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate 2 For Res. No.5 : Mr. Amit Kumar Naik, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Res. No. 6 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate MAC No. 2014 of 2019 1 - Santram S/o Lt. Abhayram Nirmalkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Vill.- Khaprabhatti, P.S.- Aazad Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sujata W/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill.- Khaprabhatti, P.S.- Aazad Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sarita D/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Vill.- Khaprabhatti, P.S.- Aazad Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Indradev S/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 19 Years R/o Vill.- Khaprabhatti, P.S.- Aazad Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellants Versus 1 - Sohan Lal S/o Banshilal Sahu, R/o Vill.- Sajoli, P.S.- Runchirai, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. C.G.-07/ C.- 8701). 2 - Ajay Bafna S/o Lt. Phoolchand Bafna, R/o Five Quarter, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tah. And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-07/ C.- 8701).
3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch-1, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tah. And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.-07/ C.- 8701).
--- Respondents {Cause title, taken from Case Information System} For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Res. No. 1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Naik, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Res. No. 2 : Mr. Mayank Kumar and Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocates For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 3 Order On Board 02/09/2025
1. M.A. (C) No. 713 of 2019 filed by the owner and M .A. (C) No. 2014 of 2019, filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, MV Act, 1988) are being disposed of by this common award, as both the appeals arise out of same accident and are directed against the award dated 29.11.2018 passed by First Additional Presiding Officer of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (For short, 'the Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 397 of 2015.
2. MAC No. 713 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant/owner challenging the part of the impugned award by which the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and saddled the same upon the appellant /owner of the offending vehicle whereas MAC No. 2014 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. {For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown before the Claims Tribunal}
3. As against compensation of Rs. 25,76,000/- claimed by unfortunate parents and younger brother & sister of deceased Manglu @ Shiv Nirmalkar, aged about 26 years, by filing claim application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for his death in a road accident that occurred on 08.12.2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. CG-07/C-8701 by its driver- respondent No. 1- Sohan Lal, which was owned by respondent No. 2 - Ajay Bafna and insured 4 with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,44,000/-
4. As per pleading made by claimants in the claim petition that deceased was running a Laundry shop, from which he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month and the claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, aforesaid amount of compensation was claimed. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim application on various grounds whereas Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded afore-stated compensation in favour of the claimants. However, with respect to issue No. 2 i.e. violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, was decided in "positive", however, it is ordered that the Insurance company shall first pay the award amount to the claimants and then to recover it from the owner and driver of offending vehicle.
6. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants /claimants in MAC No. 2014 /219 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably.
7. Mr. Mayank Kumar and Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, learned counsel 5 for the respondent No. 2 / owner submits learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in recording a finding that the Insurance Company has exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants, which is liable to be set aside. They further submit that on the date of accident, owner of the offending vehicle has already deposited requisite fee for obtaining the permit therefore, it cannot be said respondent No. 2 was not having valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle to drive the offending vehicle at public place.
8. Mr. Amit Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle has extended his support to the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/owner.
9. Mr. Awasthi, learned Advocate appearing for Insurance company supported the impugned awarded and submits that finding with regard to exoneration of the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence & material available on record; and just & proper amount of compensation has been awarded to the claimants, which do not call for any interference in the instant appeal.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
11. This Court would first deal with the factum of just and proper compensation to be awarded to the claimants?
12. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was running a laundry shop and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence is available on record to substantiate this fact. 6 However, the deceased was found to be 27 years of age by the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, taking into consideration the age of the deceased; nature of job; dependency; and minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time, this Court can safely presume notional income of the deceased as Rs 6,000/- per month i.e. Rs.72,000/- per annum.
13. In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby re-compute the compensation in the following manner -
1 Monthly income of the Rs.6000/-
deceased 2 Future prospects 40% (6000 + Rs.8,400/-
2,400) 3 Yearly income (8,400x12) Rs. 1,00,800/-
4 50% deducted towards Rs. 50,400/-
personal expenses of the
deceased (1,00,800 / 2)
5 Multiplier of 17 (50,400 X 17) Rs.8,56,800/- {Loss of
. dependency
6 Towards Loss of Estate + +Rs.30,000/-
Funeral Expenses
{Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-}
7
Filial Consortium (Rs. +Rs.1,60,000/-
40,000/- each to
appellants )
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.10,46,800/-
14. Thus, the claimants/appellants in M.A. (C) No. 2014 of 2019 would become entitle for Rs. 10,46,800/- as compensation in place of Rs. 7,44,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
15. For the foregoing reasons, MAC No. 2014 of 2019 filed by the appellants / claimants is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 7,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,46,800/-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs.3,02,800/- over and above the amount of Rs. 7,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,02,800/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 29.03.2019 till its actual payment.
16. This would lead me to the next point as to whether the exoneration of the insurance company in absence of valid permit of the offending vehicle is justified or not?
17. The insurance company was required to prove issue No. 2 i.e. violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
18. A written statement has been filed by the insurance company, in which, it has taken as a plea that the offending vehicle was being used without valid and effective permit & fitness certificate of the offending 8 vehicle, which amounts to violation of the provisions contained in Sections 56 and 66 of the MV Act. In order to prove this defence, the insurance company has examined a witness namely- Hemant Jaiswal, Assistant Grade-II, Regional Transport Office, Durg as NAW-01, who has stated that a permanent permit was issued in the name of Ms. Bafna Earth Movers, which was valid & effective from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2019 for the entire State of Chhattisgarh.
19. The Insurance Company further examined Ritesh Kumar Rahangdale to prove the fact that the insurance policy was issued in the name of M/s. Bafna Earth Movers Limited for the period from 31.03.2014 to 30.03.2015, which is marked as Ex. D/3. He further deposed that as per terms and conditions of the insurance police Ex. D/3, the driver of the offending vehicle should have valid and effective driving license and it should have valid permit. He further deposed that on 08.12.2014, offending vehicle was being driven without valid & effective permit. He further deposed that the Police Thana, Dhamdha has not seized the permit of the offending vehicle and for plying the offending vehicle without permit, an offence is also registered against the owner of the offending vehicle and he was charge-sheeted also. He further deposed that a copy of the permit made available by the owner to the Investigator of the Insurance Company was after the accident i.e. was found on 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2019. Apart from this, the owner has not furnished any effective permit from 15.03.2008 to 14.03.2013.
20. Another witness namely Animesh Kumar Tandon from the office of RTO, Raipur was also examined by Insurance Company, who deposed 9 that vide Ex. D/2, a permit for the period from 15.03.2008 to 14.03.2013 was issued in respect of offending vehicle for the entire State of Chhattisgarh. This witness has clearly stated that permit for the offending vehicle was not issued by the RTO Office on 08.12.2014 i.e. the date of accident.
21. From the perusal of these evidence, it is quite evident that initially permit was issued for the period from 15.03.2008 to 14.03.2013 and subsequently it was issued for the period from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2019.
22. The appellant / owner examined himself and he stated that he is owner of the offending vehicle and to obtain the permit he deposited the fees in RTO, Durg on 08.12.2014 at about 9.54 am and the receipt thereof is Ex. D/4. He has not deposed that he is not filed any permit prior to 08.12.2014 whereas the insurance company has exhibited the permit issued for offending vehicle valid for the period from 15.03.2008 to 14.03.2013 vide Ex.D/2. According to witness Hemant Jaiswal (NAW-01), a permit was issued in favour of Bafna Earth Movers for the period from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2019, which is valid for the entire State of Chhattisgarh, and a register was maintained Ex. D1/c in which the details of the offending vehicle was mentioned.
23. From the perusal of defence of the owner, it appears that on the date of accident he had already paid the fees for issuance of permit therefore, it can not be said that there is any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
24. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the owner, it 10 would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 66 of MV Act, which is reproduced below:-
"Section 66. Necessity for permits. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
[Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.] (2)The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer.] (3)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply
(a)to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;
(b)to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;
(c)to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;11
(d)to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses;
(e)to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety;
(f)to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf;
(g)to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(h) [* * *]
(i)to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;
(j)subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods;
(k)to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle;
(l) [* * *]
(m)to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination;
(n)to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;
(o)to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of, the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or 12
(p)to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.
[(q) to any transport vehicle having been issued a licence under a scheme, under sub-section (3) of section 67 or sub-section (1) of section 88A, or plying under such orders as may be issued by the Central Government or by the State Government.] (4)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.
25. Section 80 of the MV Act described the procedure in applying for and granting permits, which reads thus : -
"80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits. - (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time.
(2)A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:
Provided that the [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) of section 66] may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74:
Provided further that where a [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter."
26. Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988 described the duration and renewal of a permit. For ready reference Section 81 of the MV Act is quoted herein below.
"81. Duration and renewal of permits. - (1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special 13 permit issued under sub-section (8) of section 88 shall be effective [from the date of issuance or renewal thereof] for a period of five years:
Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section 88, such countersignature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.
(2)A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-
section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4)The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:(a)the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application;
(b)the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:
(i)plying any vehicle (1)without payment of tax due on such vehicle; (2)without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; (3)on any unauthorised route;
(ii)making unauthorised trips:
Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account:Provided further that no application under this sub- section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant.
(5)Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a 14 temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.
27. Section 81 of the MV Act clearly envisaged that permit other than a temporary permit under Section 87 or special permit issued under sub Section (8) of Section 88 shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of 5 years. It further reflects that in order to renew the permit, an application has to be led not less than 15 days prior to the date of expiry of the permit. Sub section 3 further gives the power to the Regional Transport authority or State Transport authority as the case may be, to entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that Section if it is specified that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. Sub-Section 5 of the Section 81 further envisaged that where a permit has been renewed after the expiry of the said period, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.
28. A reading of the provisions contained in all the sections makes it clear that the application for renewal of permit must be granted before the expiry of the period of 15 days. In the case in hand, according to the version of owner, requisite fee for obtaining permit on the date of accident itself has been deposited owner of the offending vehicle. Even owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce on record any permit either temporary or special permit during the period when initial 15 permit expired in the year 2013 till 08.12.2014. According to the Hemant Jaiswal (NAW-1) examined by the Insurance company who fairly stipulated that permit was issued from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2019. Therefore, from examination of the facts and evidence available on record, it is quite apparent that only the fees was deposited and as such on that day that no valid and effective permit was existing of the offending vehicle.
29. Now the owner failed to submit any documentary evidence to demonstrate that at the time of accident, he is having valid and effective permit of the offending vehicle.
30. The same issue has been dealt with by Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others reported in 2004 ACJ 2094, which has further been reiterated and followed by this Court in the matter of Ramsingh @ Bharatlal & others Vs. Santosh Singh & others reported in 2015 (3) ACCD 1527 (C.G.)
31. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with respect to exonerating the insurance company to pay compensation cannot be found faulted one.
32. Accordingly, MAC No. 713 / 2019 filed by appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Whereas, MAC No. 2014 / 2019 filed by appellants/claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein- above.
16
33. As the order of "pay and recover" has already been passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. Rs.3,02,800/- alongwith interest @6% per annum awarded by this Court shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within 60 days.
34. Appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover the amount deposited by it & disbursed to the claimants, if any, from the owner and driver of vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned claims Tribunal, If he desires to recover the same.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Ami
AMITA Digitally signed by
AMITA DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.09.18
18:03:12 +0530