Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar Keshari

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:31114

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 631 of 2020

¶6

IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Now New Address 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining OfÏce, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

Santosh Kumar Keshari S/o Brij Mohan Keshari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Khod, P.S. Ramkola, Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate :

¶12

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

16/08/2024

¶15

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNA AJAY Date: AJAY 2024.08.2014:56:17 +0530

¶16

Heard on IA No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

On due consideration , the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

Also heard on merits of the Appeal (MAC No.631/2020).

¶20

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Disrict Surajpur (CG) in Claim Case No.116/2017.

¶21

By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimant filed under Section 163-A of the Act and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant in a vehicular accident.

¶22

It is an injury case. On the date of the accident i.e. 25.3.2010, the injured/claimant started from his village – Khodh by riding his motorcycle – TVS Sports bearing registration No. CG 15/CD/0451 and was heading towards Ambikapur. When the claimant reached near Gram Dumariya, one person, who was riding a bicycle, rashly and negligently turned his bicycle in the opposite direction and collided with his motorcycle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. On account of the said accident, the claimant has lost his hearing and is also suffering from pain all over his body. Furthermore, the claimant sustained injuries over his head, for which, an operation was done and one steel bowl has been installed in his head. He was admitted in the Hospital for a few days. The

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

injured/claimant has produced several bills with regard to his medical treatment.

¶25

At this juncture, upon being asked, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company fairly admits that there is a contractual liability and a Contractual Comprehensive PolicyEx.D/1 was issued in favour of the respondent/claimant and the personal accident cover is to the extent of Rs.1 Lakh. When a further query has been made, learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the legal proposition laid down in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another , (2020) 2 SCC 550, wherein, in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, when a claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the principles laid down in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2009) 13 SCC 710 and also in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rajni Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736 , it was held that when the compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms. I n the said matter, the High Court has dismissed the claim of the claimant/s in its entirety, but the Supreme Court partly allowed their claim and held that the claimant/s shall be entitled to the contractual liability to the extent of Rs.1 lakh.

¶26

In the instant case, considering the fact that there is a

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

Contractual Comprehensive Policy-Ex.D/1 issued in favour of the respondent (which is not disputed) and within the limit of the said policy, only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded and further in view of the ratio laid down in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another (supra) , this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶29

In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶32

Shyna

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited v. Santosh Kumar Keshari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited v. Santosh Kumar Keshari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satnami Samaj Samrupara Vs Ram Kumar Tandon

Sunny Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Brijmohan Vs Balram Kumar Soni

Pushpa Vs Ramnath

Rita Jalan Vs Amit Jalan