BRANCH MANAGER vs MAHENDRA KUMAR VATTI

1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2026.10.27
17:19:46 +0530
SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI

CGHC010053552024 2026:CGHC:45152
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 314 of 2024
Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Nagar
Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari District Dhamtari, C.G. Through Legal Hub
Incharge Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Opposite
Rajeev Plazza Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

... Appellant
versus
1 - Mahendra Kumar Vatti S/o Late Ramgulal Vatti Aged About 34
Years R/o. Village Old Naka Ward No. 4, Charama P.S. And Tahsil
Charama District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. (Claimant)
2 - Motilal Paswan S/o Late Badrilal Paswan Aged About 41 Years
R/o Village Parpanaka Kangoli Post Jagdalpur P.S. And Tahsil
Jagdalpur District Bastar, C.G. (Driver)
3 - Bhagwan Das Gandhi S/o Rameshwar Lal Gandhi Aged About 44
Years R/o Danteshwari Ward No. 20 Jagdalpur P.S. And Tahsil
Jagdalpur District Bastar, C.G. (Owner)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Ku. Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
(26.10.2026)
1. This is an insurer’s appeal under Section 173 (2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 19.12.2023
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal North Bastar
Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.57/2021.
2.
The gist of claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on
10.10.2020 at about 7:30 PM, deceased Dilip Watti was
returning from Ratesara towards Charama to his home,
driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19 BJ-
5815 slowly on his correct side. As he reached near Manoj
Dhaba on the main road, National Highway No. 30, the
driver of Truck bearing No. CG-17 H-1976 (in short ‘the
offending vehicle’), i.e., Respondent No.2 herein, had parked
the said vehicle in the middle of the main road, from
Ratesara towards Charama, in darkness without giving any
indicator, and had gone away. Due to darkness, deceased
Dilip Watti, along with his motorcycle, collided with the
parked offending vehicle. Due to the said accident, Dilip
Watti sustained grievous injuries on his head, as a result of
which he died on the spot. On the report of the incident
being lodged at concerned Police Station, crime was
registered.
3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a healthy
person aged 38 years. The claimant (respondent No. 1), who
is the brother of the deceased, had filed a claim application
before the learned Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs). After a close
scrutiny of the evidence available on record, the learned
Claims Tribunal found no contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased and also found no breach of policy

3
conditions. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,05,960/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty) along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application till its realization, in favour of respondent No. 1,
the legal representative of the deceased, towards his
irreparable loss, and held the Insurance Company liable for
payment of the same. Being aggrieved by the said award, the
present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
4. The first argument advanced by learned counsel appearing
for the appellant / Insurance Company is that the learned
Tribunal has committed a serious error of law, as well as of
fact, by ignoring that the driver and owner did not produce
the effective authorization letter on the date of the accident,
which is required for a National Permit for plying the vehicle
as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the
permit could not have been treated as valid on the date of
the accident. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal is perverse, contrary to the documentary evidence
available on record, and is legally unsustainable. The
appellant is, consequently, entitled to be exonerated from
the liability to satisfy the award, as there was no valid
permit in force on the date of the accident.
5. He next submits that the deceased had consumed alcohol
and had collided with the offending vehicle from behind,
therefore, the deceased was also liable for the accident. So
far as maintainability is concerned, learned counsel
submits that the deceased was 38 years of age. The
claimant Mahendra is the brother of the deceased. Both the
brothers were residing separately. The claimant Mahendra
was not dependent on the deceased, therefore, the claim

4
petition is not maintainable. In support of his argument, he
relies of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Company
Limited Vs. Anand Pal and Others, SLP (Civil) No.
7805/2022 , decided on 04.12.2023 , wherein it has been
held that a claim petition filed by a person who is not a
dependent of the deceased is not maintainable.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant submits that under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it is not necessary to be a dependent, but
being a legal heir is sufficient. He further submits that in
the present case, there was no contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased. No eye-witness has been
examined in this case. At the time of the accident, the
offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road
without any indicator. There was no negligence on the part
of the deceased. The charge-sheet has also been filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle. He next submits
that he has filed a cross-objection. The learned Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side,
which may be enhanced. Hence, the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company may be rejected and the cross-
objection may be allowed, and the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal may be enhanced suitably.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made hereinabove and went
through the record with utmost circumspection.
8. Nilesh Paikra (NAW-2), Assistant Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company, and Paleshwar Sahu (NAW-1),
Assistant Grade-2, Regional Transport Office, Jagdalpur,
were examined, who have proved Ex. D-1C, the Permit

5
Register, and have stated that on the date of the accident,
the offending vehicle did have a permit, but there was no
authorization. The contention advanced on behalf of the
appellant is that the permit of the offending vehicle had not
been duly authorized and, therefore, the vehicle was being
plied in contravention of the provisions of law as well as the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said
contention, however, cannot be accepted in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Binod
Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., SLP
(Civil) No.13060 of 2020 , wherein, in paragraph 8, it has
been observed as under:-
“8. This Court has carefully gone through the permit
which is on record and the National Permit is
certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization
fee was required to be paid only when the truck was
moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in
the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on
account of short- circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of
Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent company
could not have repudiated the claim on such a
frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued
by the competent authority in Bihar and, therefore,
there was no requirement of paying authorization fee
when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar
and as per the terms and conditions of the National
Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid
only when the truck was moving out of State of
Bihar. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance
claim as held by the State Commission and,
therefore, the order passed by the National
Commission, dated 19.08.2020, deserves to be set

6
aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent
National Insurance Company is directed to process
the claim of the appellant and to pay the amount to
the appellant within a period of 60 days from today.
It is needless to mention that the claim became due
in the year 2014and it was repudiated by the
respondent National Insurance Company in the year
2014 itself. The order of the State Commission
allowing the claim was passed in the year 2017
which was reversed by the National Commission in
the year 2020. Therefore, in the considered opinion
of this Court, the appellant was not only entitled for
the entire claim amount right from the date it became
due but he is also entitled for interest from the date
of the complaint made before State Commission till
the date, the amount is actually paid to him. The
appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum and the same with the proposed amount be
paid positively within 60 days from today.”
9. In the present case, the offending vehicle was registered
with the Transport Authority at Jagdalpur and was being
operated within the territorial limits of the State of
Chhattisgarh. The accident also occurred within the State
of Chhattisgarh. In such circumstances, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Binod
Kumar Singh (supra), no separate authorization of the
permit was required for plying the vehicle within the State
of Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the alleged absence of such
authorization cannot be treated as a breach of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy so as to absolve the
appellant-Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify
the insured.
10. So far as the issue of contributory negligence is

7
concerned: The accident occurred on 10.10.2020 at about
7:30 PM. It was dark at that time. The claimant's case is
that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the
road and the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver
of the offending vehicle. However, the claimant's own
witness, Sanjay Pudo (AW2), friend of the deceased, who
was examined before the learned Tribunal, has admitted
that the deceased had consumed liquor at the time of the
accident. He has further admitted that the deceased
dashed against the vehicle standing on the side of the road
from behind and that the deceased was not wearing a
helmet at the time of the accident, that is why he died. In
paragraph 9 of his statement, he has further admitted that
the place of the incident was a National Highway, there was
sufficient light on the road for the vehicles passing by, and
had the deceased been careful, the accident would not have
occurred. Thus, from the statement of the claimant's own
witness, it is established that the deceased was also
negligent. He was under the influence of liquor, was driving
without a helmet and had dashed against the stationary
vehicle from behind. In this situation, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the deceased had also contributed
to the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and the admissions made by the claimant's
witness, the contributory negligence of the deceased is
assessed at 50% and that of the driver of the offending
vehicle is also assessed at 50%.
11. So far as the question of maintainability / dependency
is concerned: It is undisputed that the deceased Dilip was
unmarried and was aged about 38 years at the time of the
accident. The claimant Mahendra is the younger brother of
the deceased and is married. The friend of the deceased,

8
namely Sanjay Pudo, who has been examined on behalf of
the claimant, himself has admitted that the claimant
Mahendra was residing separately with his wife and
children, and the deceased Dilip was residing separately. He
has further admitted that the claimant Mahendra was not
dependent upon the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of (Supra), in paragraph 7, has
Anand Pal
held as under:-
"7. On the above, it is necessary for us to be
conscious that there are two family registers. This
would indicate that the victim resided separately as
was noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The siblings of the victim were older and were
married with their own respective families. In these
circumstances, they being dependent on the victim's
earnings is unlikely particularly when the victim
resided separately."
12. In the present case also, the deceased and the
claimant, who are siblings, were residing separately. The
deceased was unmarried, whereas the claimant was
married and was residing with his wife and children. In
such facts and circumstances, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Pal (supra), the
claimant cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased.
Therefore, awarding compensation on the basis of
dependency by applying multiplier is not found to be
justified. The claimant is entitled only to compensation
under the conventional heads.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and as the accident occurred in
the year 2020, the claimant is entitled to the following

9
amounts under the conventional heads:-
1 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/-
Total Rs. 77,000/-
14. Since the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 77,000/- is being
awarded only under the conventional heads, the principle
of contributory negligence is not being applied in the
present case. The offending vehicle was insured with the
appellant/Insurance Company at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company shall bear the
aforesaid amount of in full, in place of the
Rs. 77,000/-
award amount i.e. Rs. 12,05,960/- as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal. The amount of Rs.77,000/- shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the claim
application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization.
Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain
intact.
15. In the result, the appeal is and the
partly allowed
impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated
herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
-Shubham