Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17784
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.A.(C) No. 1833 of 2023
M.A.(C) No. 94 of 2024
M.A.(C) No. 1819 of 2023
M.A.(C) No. 1821 of 2023
NAFR
M.A.(C) No. 1833 of 2023
Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), ...(Insurer) --- Appellant
Versus
1 - Ram Singh Kashyap, S/o Narayan Kashyap, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Ghatlohanga, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), ...(Claimants)
2 - Dallu Ram Yadav, S/o Sukalu Ram Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lies Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur, (C.G.) – 492001. ...(Driver)
3 - Naveen Kumar Golcha, S/o Sampat Lal Golcha, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lies Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur, (C.G.) – 492001, ...(Owner) --- Respondents
M.A.(C) No. 94 of 2024
Ramsingh Kashyap S/o Narayan Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o Ghatohanga, Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) --- Appellant
Versus
1 - Dullu Ram Yadav S/o Shri Sukalu Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Golchha Road Lines Rajendra Motors Complex Ring Road No. 02 Bhanpuri, Raipur, Police Station Bhanpuri, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 (Vehicle Driver)
2 - Naveen Kumar Golchha S/o Shri Sampat Lal Golchha Aged About 50 Years R/o Golchha Road Lines Rajendra Motors Complex Ring Road No. 02 Bhanpuri, Raipur, Police Station Bhanpuri, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 (Vehicle Owner)
3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limtied, Branch Office Pratham Floor Shanti Chabi Tower, Sirasar Chowk Power House Road Near Allahabad Bank Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) --- Respondents
M.A.(C) No. 1819 of 2023
Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Insurer) --- Appellant
Versus
1 - Patiram Baghel, S/o Ramuram Baghel, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Ghatlohanga, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) (Claimant)
2 - Dallu Ram Yadav S/o Sukalu Ram Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lies Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur (C.G.)- 492 001 (Claimant)
3 - Naveen Kumar Golcha, S/o Sampat Lal Golcha, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lies Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur (C.G.)- 492 001 (Claimant) --- Respondents
M.A.(C) No. 1821 of 2023
Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.),...(Insurer) --- Appellant
Versus
1 - Ramsingh Kashyap, S/o Narayan Kashyap, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Ghatlohanga, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
2 - Narayan Kashyap, S/o Ramdhar Kashyap, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Ghatlohanga, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3 - Batibai Kashyap W/o Narayan Kashyap, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Ghatlohanga, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
4 - Dallu Ram Yadav, S/o Sukalu Ram Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lines, Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh -492001
5 - Naveen Kumar Golcha, S/o Sampat Lal Golcha, aged about 50 years, R/o Golcha Road Lines, Rajendra Motors Complex, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh -492001 --- Respondents
For Appellant/Insurance Company : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate in MAC No.1833/2023, MAC No. 1819/2023 and MAC No.1821/2023.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shikhar Shukla, Advocate in MAC No.1833/2023 and MAC No. 1819/2023.
For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate in MAC No.1833/2023, MAC No. 1819/2023.
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Shri Shikhar Shukla, Advocate in MAC No.1821/2023.
For Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate in MAC No.1821/2023.
For Appellant : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate in MAC No.94/2024.
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate in MAC No.94/2024.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate in MAC No.94/2024.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raj Awasthi, Shikhar Sharma
For the Respondents: Shikhar Shukla, Praveen Dhurandhar
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation and Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Multiple appeals were filed by an insurance company and a claimant regarding a motor accident. The insurance company challenged its liability, alleging the driver was intoxicated and lacked a valid license. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation for injuries (40% shoulder disability) sustained while working as a labourer, arguing the tribunal's assessment of functional disability was too low.
Findings of Court:
The Insurance Company failed to prove policy violations; no medical evidence supported driver intoxication, and evidence showed a valid driving license. The claimant's functional disability for a labourer was increased to 30%, and the award was recalculated based on an 18-multiplier and future prospects, leading to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,45,920/-.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is entitled to exoneration due to policy violations (drunken driving/invalid license) and whether the tribunal erred in assessing functional disability and overall compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The percentage of permanent physical disability does not automatically translate to the same percentage of loss of earning capacity; the tribunal must consider the nature of the claimant’s occupation. Evidence of physical disability and loss of earning capacity must be analyzed cumulatively.
Result: Insurance company's appeals dismissed; claimant's appeal allowed in part with enhanced compensation.
Order on Board
07/04/2026
1. As these four appeals are arising out of the same accident, they are heard and deiced by this common order.
2. M.A.C. No. 1833 of 2023, M.A.C. No. 1819 of 2023 and M.A.C. No. 1821 of 2023 have been filed by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG-04/CZ-2577 against the award dated 23.08.2023 passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 56/2021; Claim Case No. 57/2021 and Claim Case No. 58/2021 respectively whereas M.A.(C) No. 94 of 2024 has been filed by the Claimants against the award passed in Claim Case No. 56/2021. The Claimant/Ram Singh Kashyap filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) seeking compensation on account injuries sustained by him in an motor accident that occurred on 07.03.2020 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Claimant - Patiram Baghel sought compensation on account of death of his wife - Kalawati in the same accident whereas claimant Ram Singh Kashyap and another filed the application for compensation for death of Premwati in the same accident.
3. The Claim applications filed by the respective claimants were allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal by the award impugned dated 23.08.2023. The defense which the Insurance Company took before the learned Claims Tribunal is with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was the case of the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was under drunken condition and thus caused the accident, and as such, he violated the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy and Insurance Company also took a defense of the driving license. Thus, Insurance Company prayed for exoneration from its liability to pay the compensation.
4. Thus, the issue involved in M.A.C. No. 1833 of 2023, M.A.C. No. 1819 of 2023, and M.A.C. No. 1821 of 2023 is whether the Insurance Company was able to prove the breach of the policy on the part of the owner.
5. The first contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. The learned Claims Tribunal gave the following findings:-
“15. इस संबंध मेंए०एस० कुरैशी (अना०सा० 03) ने अपनेन्यायालयीन मुख्य परीक्षण मेंकथन किया हैकि वह क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय जगदलपुर मेंसहायक ग्रेड 03 के पद पर वर्ष2018 से कार्यरत्है। इस साक्षी नेअपनेन्यायालयीन मुख्य परीक्षण मेंकथन किया हैकि प्रकरण मेंपेश वाहन चालक दल्लुराम यादव का वाहन चलानेका लाइसेंस पार्टिकुलर उनके कार्यालय सेजारी किया गया था, जो प्र०एन०ए 07 सी हैजिसका मूल प्रति दावा प्रकरण क्रमांक 56/2021 में संलग्न हैजिसके अ सेअ भाग पर क्षेत्रीय परिवहन अधिकारी जगदलपुर के हस्ताक्षर है। इस साक्षी का आगेयह भी कथन हैकि प्रकरण मेंपेश थाना कोतवाली का पत्र क्रमांक 888/2020 दिनांक-26/06/2020 उनके कार्यालय को प्राप्त हुआ था। उक्त पत्र प्र०एन० ए० 4 सी है, जिसका सत्यापित प्रति दावा प्रकरण क्र मांक 56/2021 में संलग्न है। इस साक्षी के अनुसार उक्त पत्र प्राप्ति के अनुसार उनके कार्यालय द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई हैक्योंकि वाहन के अनुसार उनके कार्यालय द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई है क्योंकि वाहन चालक का लाइसेंस क्षेत्रीय परिवहन कार्यालय रायपुर का है। उक्त पत्र को अग्रिम कार्यवाही हेतुउनके कार्यालय सेक्षेत्रीय परिवहन कार्यालय रायपुर को प्रेषित किया गया था या नहीं, उसकी उसेजानकारी नहीं है।
16.प्रतिपरीक्षण मेंइस साक्षी ने आगे यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि उनके कार्यालय द्वारा जारी वाहन चालक दल्लुराम का ड्राईविंग लाईसेंस पटिकूलर प्र०एन०ए० 07 के अनुसार ट्रांसपोर्टव्हीकल्स चलाने का लाईसेंस था, जो दिनांक-01/05/2019 से30/04/2022 तक के लिए वैध एवं प्रभावशील है। यह भी स्वीकार किया हैकि उक्त चालक दल्लुराम के ड्राईविंग लाईसेंस को निरस्त कियेजानेके लिए आज दिनांक तक कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई है प्रकार इस साक्षी के उक्त साक्ष्य कथन सेयह स्पष्ट होता हैकि विवेचना के शराब के नशेमेंवाहन चलायेजानेके कारण अनावेदक क्रमांक 01 के लाईस को निरस्त कराने बाबत्थाना कोतवाली के द्वारा क्षेत्रीय प
