<. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha,J. M.A. No. 774 of 2005 Chamrin Bai & Others ’ Vs. Budhram & Others And (Connected M.A. Nov 775/2005; MA. No. 776/2005; MA. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005) JUDGMENT IAFor consijdration Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinhgi1 Judge / “:5 a . 0 j ag/xg w § ww Post for Judgment: / /o3/2o1 1 Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge // /o3/20"1’1 / W f / / e e / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH1 BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. &E ' Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. M.A. No. 774 of 2005 Chamrin Bai, W/o. Late Shri Jhaduram, Caste — Gond, Aged about 39 years 2 Kumari Surekha, D/o. Late Shri g r; Jhaduram, Caste — Gond, Aged‘ about 20 years 3 Lalit Kumar, S/o. Late Shri ‘ Jhaduram, Caste — Gond, Aged ‘ about 15 years, Through his ’guardian Mother Smt. Chamrin Bai, W/o. Late Shri Jhaduram All R/o. — Village & P.O. Dubey Umargaon, P.S. Bhanpuri, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Appellants Versus 1 Budhram, S/o. Peda, Caste — Muria, Respondents Aged about 33 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) 2 Sheikh Munawar Ali, S/o. Sheikh Suieman Ali, R/o. ‘Patnampara, Sukma, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) 3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) M.A. No. 775 of 2005 \Omprakash Singh Tomar, S/o. Master Singh Tomar, Aged about 42 years, Rlo. Bhagat .Singh Ward, Pathraguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Ap pellant Versus M.A. No. 774/2005‘ M.A. N0. 775/2005‘ M.A. No. 776/2005' M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. N0. 779/2005 Respondents Budhram, S/o. Peda, Caste — Muria, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) Sheikh Munawar Ali, S/o. Sheikh Suleman Ali, R/o. Patnampara, Sukma, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) M.A. No. 776 of 2005 Janakram, Slo. Thakur, Aged about 46 years, Caste — Gond, R/o. L—1 Vth Battalion, C.G. Armed Police, Kangoli, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Appellant Versus Budhram, S/o. Peda, Caste — Muria, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) Sheikh Munawar Ali, S/o. Sheikh Suleman Ali, R/o. Patnampara, Sukma, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Oftice, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar(C.G.) g .4 M.A. No. 778 of 2005 ' Meghnath Netam, S/o. Nathalram Netam, Aged about 25 years, Caste — Gond, R/o. Vill. Khudurpani, Post Office Farsiya, Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari (C.G.) “Presently residing at Commandant, Vth Battalion, C.G. Armed Police Jagdalpur (C.G.) Respondents Appellant Versus wimm i ¢§§§Mm$s lfi‘ 1% * 3 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; M.A. N0. 776/2005; M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 Nagar, Police Dantewada (C.G.) 2 Sheikh Munawar Ali, S/o. Sheikh Suieman Ali, R/o. Patnampara, Sukma, Police Station, Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Agpeais under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) ix Apgearance: Mrs. Fouzia Mirzaand Ms. Farah Minhaz, Advocates of the appellants/claimants. Mr. Sudhir Agrawai andMr. P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No.3/insurance Company. <- Resgondents Budhram, Slo. Peda, Caste — Muria, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Gandhi District Nagar, Police Station Sukma, Dantewada (C.G.) e 2 Sheikh Munawar Ali, S/o. Sheikh Suieman Ali, Rlo. Patnampara, - Sukma, Police Station Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) The Orientai insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ’ And M.A. No. 779 of 2005 t AQQeilagt ‘ Bajrangi Prasad, Slo. Shri Loknath, Aged about 47 years, Caste — Coal, P.O. ' R/o. Village Dhansingh Goad, Goadkhurd, Police Station Janeh, Tahsil Weavthara, District Rewa residing at Vth (M.P.) Presently Battalion, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Versus Res‘gondents Budhram, S/o. Peda, Caste — Muria, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Gandhi 4 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; M.A. No. 776/2005; M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 JUDGMENT (14.03.2011) Following judgment of the Court was deliver§d by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation awarded in 5 different Claim Cases by a common award dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Third Additional MotorruKccident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur. The Tribunal has awarded compensations to the appellants in the following manner:- . (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellants/claimants filed claim petition(s) u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming different amount(s) of compensation. Claim Case No. 59/2004 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased- Jhaduram claiming compensation on account of his death in the motor accident, whereas, other claim cases were filed for the personal injuries \\ SLNo. Misc. - Claim Amount Amount Appeal Case Claimed Rs. awarded number number Rs. 1. M.A. No. 774/2005 59/2004 19,25,000/~ 31,000/— 2. M.A. No. 775/2005 62/2004 6,60.000/- 27,000/- 3. M.A. No. 776/2005 58/2004 6,60,000/— 27,000/— 4. MA. No. 778/2005 60/2004 17,28,000]- 31,000/— 5. M.A. No. 779/2005 57/2004 7,20,000/- ~' 27,000/- 5 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; M.A. N0. 776/2005; M A Nnr 778/2005 & M.A. N0. 779/2005 . (ll)? / and permanent disability sustained by the claimants in the said accident. The accident took place on 15.1.2003 at about 4.30 a.m. when the Manindra pick-up Jeep bearing registration No. CG 18 — H/0134, in which Jhaduram and other claimants were traveling, dashed‘against a mango tee on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. The offending Evehicle was registered and insured as goods carrying j’commercial vehicle“ The said vehicle was used for transportation of the dead body of a constable and the ‘claimants and Jhaduram were returning back after V. transporting the dead body of the deceased-constable to his native place. Deceased— Jhaduram and other claimants were constables ih S.A.F., 5‘“ Battalion, Jagdalpur. On 12.4.2004 the claimants were awarded interim compensation by the Tribunal. In Claim Case No. 59/2004, interim compensation of Rs.50,000/— was awarded, whereas, in other claim cases, interim compensation was awarded at the rate of 25,000/- each. This amount was awarded against the Insurance Company. The Tribunal recorded consolidated evidence in Claim Case No. 57/2004.The claimants' examined Bajrangi Prasad (AW-1), Chamrim Bai (AW-2), Deolal Mandavi (AW-3), Meghnath.(AW—4), Abdul Hamid Khan (AW:5), Om Prakash Singh (AW-6), Janak Ram (AW-7) and Dr. L‘IL. Thakur (AW-8) in support of their claim petitions, whereas, the respondents’ examined Shailendra Kumar (NAW-1 —- concerned Branch Manager) and Munnawar Ali (NAW-2 — owner) in rebuttaL On a close scrutiny of evidence Ied before it, the Tribunal awarded above amount(s) of‘compensation in each case holding all the cases to be the injury cases. The plea taken by the legal representatives of deceased- Jhaduram in Claim Case No. 59/2004 that his death occurred on account of the accident, ‘ 6 MA No 774/2005, MA No 775/2005, MA No 776/2005, M A No 778/2005 & M A No 779/2005 was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the claimants could not establish that deceased- Jhaduram died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal held that there was no nexus between his death and the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver therefore the claimants were entitled to receive above amount(s) of compensation in each “ case. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance Company on account of breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal also directed that‘if the amount(s) of compensation is not paid within two months from the date of passing of the award, the claimants would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The owner and driver were held liable to pay the amount(s) of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed that if the amount(s) of interim compensation has been paid by the insurer, the insurer shall be entitled to get back the said amount(s) from the claimants. :30 (3) Mrs. Fouzia Mirza & Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants,g argued that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance Company; They also argued that the Tribunal wrongly held that the matter of Jhaduram .cannot be taken as a death claim; They further argued that the direction for recovery of the interim compensation from the claimants is also improper; they also argued for suitable enhancement in amount(s) of compensation in each case. ix 7 M.A. No. 774/2005' M.A. N0. 775/2005‘ M.A. No. 776/2005' M.A‘ No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim cases. t “a 7A (6) So far as exoneration of the Insurance Company’ is concerned, we find that the offending vehicle was Manhindra pick-up and it was registered as a goods carrying commercial vehicle. The copy of the insurance Policy has been filed and proved as EX.-D/1. DW—1 has also been examined on this point. This makes clear that the claimants and deceased- Jhaduram were traveling as passengers in a goods carrying commercial vehicle, which was a breach of policy conditions. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. For the above reasons, we find no illegality in the finding of Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability for payment of amount(s) of compensation. C, E (7) Now we shallconsider the case of constable~ Jhaduram. The legal representatives ofmdeceased-constable- Jhaduram filed the claim petition pleading that Jhaduram died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, therefore, a compensation of Rs.19,25,000/— be awarded to them. Chamrin Bai (AW-2) and 8 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; MA N0. 776/2005; M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 Deolal Mandavi (AW—3) have been examined in support of the above claim made by legal representatives of deceased- Jhaduram h in Claim Case No. 59/2004. Chamrin Bai (AW-2 — wife of the deceased) admitted in the cross-examination that Jhaduram was admitted in the hospital and he was discharged after the treatment. She‘further admitted that her husband died after one month after the date of discharge. She’ also admitted that no post—mortem examination of the dead body of her husband was conducted. She further admitted that no report of his death was lodged in the police station. She also‘ admitted in the cross—examination that after the death of her husband, his son was given compassionate appointment. lt is on this evidence, the Tribunal held that it was not established by the claimants that deceased- Jhaduram died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal, on the basis of bills produced regarding treatment of Jhaduram (Ex.—P/68 to P/78), awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards his treatement and Rs.25,000/— for the injuries sustained by him. By aWarding a further sum of Rs.1,000/—, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.31,000/- to the claimants in this matter. On due consideration of the entire evidence available on record, we find that a total amount of Rs.50,000/— would be a just and proper compensation to the claimants in this matter. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 59/2004 is enhanced by Rs.19,000/-. ‘4: .N 9 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; M.A. No. 776/2005; ‘ M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 W (8) Now we shall consider the cases of Omprakash, Janakram, Meghnath and Bajrangi Prasad. Omprakash, Janakram ‘and Bajrengi Prasad have been awarded Rs.27,000/-. eachb whereas Meghnath has beeh awarded Rs.31,000/-. They had claimed compensation l . on account of personal . Injuries . . and permanent disability suffered by them. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that Omprakash, Janakram, Meghnath and Bajrangi suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%, 40%, 46% and 40% respectfully. All the above claimants were constables worl€ing in S.A.F. Battalion. Their disability certificates have been proved by Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-8). It appears that the percentage of disability recorded by the Doctor was with relation to the particular organ on which the injuries of respective claimants were sustained, and it was not the percentage of disability of entire body of the claimants. lt comes in the evidence of the claimants that even after sustaining their injuries in the motor aCcident, they are still continuing in their services and they have not suffered any loss in their services either on account of injuries or permanent disability proved to the suffered by them. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded the finding that, in fact, the claimants did not suffered any loss in their future earning capacity even after suffering the above percentage of permanent disability. \‘v‘x . (9) ln case of Omprakash, the Tribunal recorded the finding that he is getting moregpa'y than what he was getting on the date of the \\ incident. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- on - \\ 10 M.A. No. 774/2005; M.A. No. 775/2005; M.A. No. 776/2005; M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 account of injuries sustained by him and it also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as expenditure for treatment and Rs.1,000/~’ on account of pain and suffering. The Tribunai thus awarded Rs.2Z,OOO/— as compensation to Omprakash for the injuries sustained by him inxthe motor accident. Similar is the case of Janakram. He has aiso not suffered any Ioss of future earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs.25,000/~ for the injuries; Rs.1,000/- foF treatment; and Rs.1,000/— for pain and suffering. He was also awarded a total s‘um of Rs.27,000/- as compensation on‘account of injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal, in similar fashion, awarded Rs.27,000/- to Bajrangi Prasad also. Looking to the injuries sustained by Meghnath, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/— towards his treatment; Rs.25,000/— for injuries sustained by him; and Rs.1,000/— towards pain and suffering. Meghnath was thus awarded a total sum of Rs.31,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded to claimants- Omprakash, Janakram, Meghnath and Bajrangi Prasad. (0) For the foregoing reasons, the Misc. Appeals are disposed of 1 on following terms:- (a) ln M.A. No. 774/2005,arising out of Claim Case No. \\ 59/2004, the amount of compensation is enhanced by ‘rx Rs. 1 9,000/—; 11 I] M A Nn 774/7nn€~M A Nn 77€/7nn§-M A Nn 775/9005- M.A. No. 778/2005 & M.A. No. 779/2005 \ ”9 (b) In other Misc‘ Appeals (MA. No.775/2005; MA. No. 776/2005; MA. No. 778/2005 & M.A. N0. 779/2005), the amount(s) of compensation are kept as it is; (c) On their respective amount(s) of compensatiom, all the appellants/c’laimants would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petitions till the date of actual payment; The direction for recovery of the amount(s) of interim compensation from the appellants by the Insurance Company is set-aside; (e) It is directed that the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount(s) of interim compensation from the owner & driver of the offending vehicle & (f) The difference of amount(s) of compensation due in favour of the appellants, shall be jointly and severally recoverable against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. s (1 1) The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. (1 2) There shall be no orders as to cost(s). ~‘, Sd/' Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sdl- Chief Justice vatti