High Court affirms negligence-based liability, applies Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar; insurer held bound to pay compensation under Section 173 MVA, binding on subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1616/2018 of GHASIN BAI Vs RAJESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA |
| CNR | CGHC010317632018 |
| Date of Registration | 04-10-2018 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single‐Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011 1 SCC 343) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once an accident is proved to arise from a vehicle’s brake failure—admitted by the driver—both owner and insurer (even under an Act Only policy) are liable. Proof of permanent disability (15%) by an orthopedic specialist meets claimant’s burden. Supreme Court’s framework in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar defines heads of compensation (medical, transport, loss of earnings, pain and suffering). Interest at 6% from filing date is awarded on the principal sum. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Claimant injured when bus overturned due to brake failure; driver admitted failure; orthopedic evidence of 15% disability; insurer contested policy type |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44739; MAC No. 1616/2018; (2011) 1 SCC 343 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011 1 SCC 343) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Driver’s recorded admission of brake failure alone suffices to establish negligence by driver and owner.
- An “Act Only” policy does not absolve the insurer from liability for personal injury compensation under MVA, 1988.
- Permanent disability proof by a specialist meets the claimant’s burden even if insurer calls no medical witnesses.
- Award of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim filing until realization is mandated.
- Supreme Court’s Raj Kumar framework remains authoritative for heads and quantum of damages.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Proof of Accident and Negligence
- FIR and final police report under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 recorded.
- Driver’s deposition (DW-1) admitted brake failure caused the bus to overturn.
-
Owner and Insurer Liability
- Owner failed to maintain brakes—strict liability under MVA.
- Even under an Act Only policy, insurer is bound to compensate for third-party personal injuries.
-
Quantum of Compensation
- Applied Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar for heads: medical expenses, transport, nourishment, loss of earnings, pain, suffering, loss of amenities.
- Fixed total compensation at ₹1,00,000.
-
Interest
- Awarded @ 6% per annum from the date of filing (01-01-2016) till realization.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimant):
- Driver admitted brake failure and negligent driving.
- Insurer did not contest accident or examine any witnesses.
- Tribunal’s finding was perverse; claimant undeniably entitled to compensation.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurer):
- Policy was Act Only, not Comprehensive; insurer not liable for claimant’s injury.
Factual Background
On 05-02-2011, the claimant was traveling in the offending bus when it overturned due to brake failure. She suffered a right-shoulder fracture resulting in 15% permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal rejected her compensation claim. On appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court reviewed driver admissions, police records, and medical evidence to allow compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: appellate jurisdiction over Claims Tribunal awards.
- IPC Sections 279, 337, 338: offences for rash/negligent driving causing harm.
- Act Only policy: covers third-party liabilities for personal injury; cannot exclude insurer’s liability once negligence proven.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s Raj Kumar framework reaffirmed.
Citations
- MAC No. 1616/2018, 2025:CGHC:44739
- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343