Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Claimants – Respondent
MAC No. 566 of 2013 | MAC No. 599 of 2013 | MAC No. 558 of 2013 | MAC No. 598 of 2013
For the Respondents:[Names of Advocates]
The insurance company is liable to compensate dependents for deaths occurring from accidents, even when the vehicle was used for non-agricultural purposes without prior evidence to establish commercial usage.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation claims - Death in accident - Appellants filed for enhancement of compensation after the death of two labourers in a tractor accident, challenging the liability and amount awarded by the Tribunal. Issues included calculation of monthly income, appropriate deductions for personal expenses, and the insurance policy's coverage for additional passengers. The court held that the farmer's income should reflect current earning patterns, factoring in future prospects. Both death claims were respectively awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 16,17,500 and Rs. 12,34,000, with apportionment directed based on the number of claimants (Paras 19-24).
(B) Liability of Insurance - The court explained the comprehensive coverage provided in the insurance policy, which included two additional employees beyond the driver, affirming the insurance company’s obligation to compensate the dependants of the deceased on assurance of proper compliance to terms stated in policy documents (Paras 11-12).
Findings of Court:
Ultimately, the insurance company was ordered to satisfy the higher award for one of the deceased employees, with specifics on payment timelines (Paras 23-26).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of deaths and claims linked to two labourers in an accident. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the adequacy of compensation and liability of the insurance company. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's examination of insurance policy's coverage. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. calculating compensation and determining appropriate amounts to be awarded. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling on insurance company’s responsibility and compensation disbursement. (Para 23 , 24) |
1. Since all the aforementioned four appeals arise out of the same accident which took place on 2.3.2012 causing death of two persons, namely, Rameshar alias Rameshwar and Toshan - lal, they are disposed of by this common order:
2. MAC Nos. 566 and 599 of 2013:
In these two appeals, one preferred by the insurance company and the other by the claimants, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 42 of 2012 is under challenge. Insurance company has assailed its liability whereas the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. These two appeals are for the death of Rameshar alias Rameshwar aged about 38 years at the relevant time. As per the pleadings taken in the claim case, when the deceased was going for labour work as usual in the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor - trolley bearing registration No. CG 05-8742-8743, its front wheel got separated and the offending vehicle fell into a pit ultimately resulting in the death of Rameshar.
3. Claim case was filed by the claimants who happen to be the wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs. 11,59,490, inter alia, pleading that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning Rs. 4,000 per month and that during the rojgar guarantee period the income rose to Rs. 5,000. It is also pleaded in the claim petition that after the death of Rameshar the claimants have turned orphans and are deprived of the supporting hand and, therefore, they are entitled to get adequate compensation.
4. MAC Nos. 558 and 598 of 2013:
In these two appeals, one preferred by the insurance company and the other by the claimants, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 41 of 2012 is under challenge. Insurance company has assailed its liability whereas the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. These two appeals are for the death of Toshanlal aged about 21 years at the relevant time. As per the pleadings taken in the claim case, when the deceased was going for labour work as usual in the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor - trolley bearing registration No. CG 05-8742-8743, its front wheel got separated and the offending vehicle fell into a pit and ultimately resulting in the death of Toshanlal.
5. Claim case was filed by the claimants who happen to be the mother and grandmother of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs. 13,94,691, inter alia, pleading that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning Rs. 4,000 per month and that during the rojgar guarantee period the income rose to Rs. 5,000. It is also pleaded in the claim petition that after the death of Toshanlal the claimants have turned orphans and are deprived of the supporting hand and, therefore, they are entitled to get adequate compensation.
6. Both the claims were contested by the insurance company on the ground that in the tractor in question four persons were travelling at the relevant time whereas the risk of only one person, i.e., driver / employ - ee was covered and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the insurance company. Further stand of the insurance company is that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural and forestry purposes but at the relevant time it was being used for transporting bricks which does not come under either of these categories and for this reason also the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the claim. Yet another ground raised by the insurance company is that though th
