Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 vs. M/s. Visakha Container Terminal Pvt Ltd

2025:CGHC:41233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 418 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.2, Goel Business Park 26, I.C.C., T.P.Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.3), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Nirmala Verma Wd/o Babulal Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Premabagh Baikunthpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Saurabh Verma S/o Late Babulal Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Premabagh Baikunthpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Priya Verma D/o Late Babulal Verma Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Nirmala Verma (Res.No.1), R/o Premabagh Baikunthpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.3), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Neha Kumari Verma D/o Late Babulal Verma Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Nirmala Verma (Res.No.1), R/o Premabagh Baikunthpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.4), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Ganeshiya Bai Wd/o Late Chanduram Verma Aged About 67 Years R/o Lodhipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.5), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Dev Singh S/o Chhittar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhindpani, P.S. Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver/non-Applicant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Suresh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Mohan Ram Dewangan R/o Village Chotia, P.S. Bango, Tahsil Podiuproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner/non-Applicant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : None (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

2 learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 175/2016. 2. The averment in in this appeal, in brief, is that the on 14.11.2016, at approximately 5:15 p.m., the deceased, Babulal Verma, was traveling towards Ambikapur, riding his motorcycle. While proceeding on the Katghora-Ambikapur Road, the pickup vehicle bearing registration number CG-12-S-3965, driven by respondent No. 6, allegedly drove rashly and negligently and collided with motorcycle of Babulal Verma. As a result of this collision, Babulal Verma sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately died on the spot. Following his death, his wife, children, and mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- from respondents No. 6 and 7 (driver and owner of the pickup vehicle) and the appellant insurance company. Respondents No. 6 and 7, in their written statement, contended that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition. They submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, Babulal Verma. It was further stated that respondent No. 6, the driver of the pickup vehicle, held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. Therefore, if any liability arose, it would be that of the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company, in its written statement, denied the claim and the averments made in the claim petition. The insurer asserted that the accident was not caused by the pickup vehicle but by the deceased, who was rashly and negligently overtaking the pickup vehicle, causing his motorcycle to fall

3 into a ditch, resulting in his injuries. Furthermore, the appellant contended that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on these contentions, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and conducted an inquiry. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 42,96,648/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim application, i.e., 30.11.2016, until realization, in favor of respondents No. 1 to 5 and against the appellant insurance company. Being aggrieved by this impugned award, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and erred in its findings on various crucial aspects. The learned Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs. 3,50,000/- under various conventional heads instead of Rs. 70,000/-, which is the amount held to be reasonable by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. This results in an excessive and unwarranted enhancement of compensation beyond the scope of the law. While assessing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in not deducting income tax from the gross income. The net income after tax is the proper basis for calculating compensation, and failure to do so has inflated the amount payable. Although the deceased is claimed to

4 have been employed with LDDP, Baikunthpur, no witness was examined on behalf of the employer to establish or prove the income of deceased. The claim of income, therefore, remains unsubstantiated and ought to have been rejected or considered cautiously. It is submitted that the deceased, by driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently while overtaking the pickup vehicle, caused the accident resulting in his own death. The Tribunal overlooked this critical fact. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal should have held that the deceased was at least 50% negligent and accordingly reduced the compensation award by half. The deceased was driving the motorcycle without proper registration from the RTO, thereby contravening the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It further appears that the motorcycle was not insured at the time of the accident. The driving license of the deceased, Babulal Verma, was not seized by the police authorities, which strongly indicates that he was not the holder of a valid and effective driving license to operate the motorcycle. This further militates against the claim and the liability of the insurer. In view of the above facts and legal positions, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant insurance company from any liability to pay compensation as the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the insurance policy conditions were violated. Additionally, the award of compensation passed by is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced to the extent permissible under the law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the insurance company has not adduced any credible or substantial evidence to establish that

5 the vehicle was operated in contravention of the insurance policy terms. The claim of invalid driving license or any breach of insurance policy terms remains unsubstantiated on record. The Tribunal has carefully examined the evidence and rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the pickup vehicle, and that the deceased was not solely responsible for the accident. There is no evidence on record to hold the deceased negligent or to reduce the compensation on account of contributory negligence. The plea of insurance company of the deceased driving a motorcycle without registration or license was not sufficiently proven. The Tribunal rightly rejected these contentions and fastened liability on the insurer. The award of compensation passed by Tribunal is supported by the material on record. While the appellant contended excessiveness of the award and non-deduction of income tax, the Tribunal has acted within its discretion, and no gross error or illegality is demonstrated to warrant interference. 6. Considering the above, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant insurance company. The Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the insurance company and has correctly fastened liability upon it. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 175/2016 is affirmed and upheld.

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna