Smt. Manki Bai Vs Santosh Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1578 of 2015

¶5

Judgment Reserved on 30.06.2025 Judgment pronounced on 18.07.2025

¶6

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.07.21 10:32:42 +0530

¶7

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, In Front Of Sandilya Stone, Opposite Devshri Talkies, Dhamtari, P. S. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. .........Non Applicant No. 03, --- Appellant.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Parasmal Jain, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Daundi, P. S. And Tahsil Daundi, District Balod C.G.......Driver And Possession Holder............Non Applicant No. 1,

¶10

2 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Tekuram Verma, R/o Village Ward No., 72, Mathpara, Birgaon, Raipur District Raipur C.G. Presently R/o Bathena Chowk, Patan, P. S. And Tahsil Patan, District Durg C.G. .......Registered Owner.........Non Applicant No. 2,

¶11

3 - The Manager Maruti Suzuki, Magneto Showroom, City Mall, Telibandha, P. S. Telibandha, Raipur C.G. Main Branch True Value Sky Auto Mobiles Heights, G.E. Road, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G........Non Applicant No. 4,

¶12

4 - Mohd. Nazim @ Nizamuddin S/o Gaus Mohammad, Aged About 65 Years R/o Qrt. No. 65, Gayatri Mandir Road, Dhamtari, P. S. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ..........Non Applicant No. 5,

¶13

5 - Smt. Manki Bai Wd/o Late Murari Ram, Aged About 24 Years

¶14

6 - Ku. Kismat D/o Late Murari Ram, Aged About 3 Years

¶15

7 - Ku. Chandani D/o Late Murari Ram, Aged About 4 Years

¶16

Respondents No. 6 & 7 are Minors, Represented Through their Natural guardian Mother Smt. Manaki Bai, Wd/o Late Murari Ram, Aged About 24 Years,

¶17

8 - Bihau Ram S/o Budharu, Aged About 54 Years

¶18

9 - Smt. Kusum Bai W/o Bihau Ram, Aged About 50 Years

¶19

Respondents No. 5 to 9 are R/o Village Khallari, Thana And Tahsil Balod, District Balod C.G..............Applicants/ Claimants, --- Respondent(s)

¶20

2

¶21

MAC No. 1579 of 2015

¶22

1 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, In Front Of Dandilya Stone, Opposite Devshri Talkies, Dhamtari, P. S. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 03, ---Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Parsamal Jain, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Daundi, P. S. And Tahsil Daundi, District Balod C.G.......Driver And Possession Holder............Non Applicant No. 1,

¶25

2 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Tekuram Verma, R/o Village Ward No. 72, Mathpara, Birgaon, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Bathena Chowk, Patan, P. S. And Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.....Registered Owner........Non Applicant No. 2,

¶26

3 - The Manager, Maruti Suzuki, Magneto Showroom, City Mall, Telibandha, P. S. Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh Main Branch Ture Value Sky Auto Mobiles Heights, G.E. Road, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..........Non Applicant No. 4,

¶27

4 - Mohd. Nazim @ Nizamuddin S/o Gaus Mohammad, R/o Qrt. No. 65, Gayatri Mandir Road, Dhamtari, P. S. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ..........Non Applicant No. 5,

¶28

5 - Smt. Seema Wd/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 25 Years,

¶29

6 - Ku. Khushabu Wd/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 1 Year,

¶30

(Minor Represented Through Her Natural guardian Mother Smt. Seema, Wd/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 25 Years,)

¶31

7 - Narayan Singh S/o Bishal, Aged About 50 Years,

¶32

8 - Smt. Heerabai W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 48 Years

¶33

No. 5 to 8 all are Gond by Caste, R/o Village Ghotiya, Thana And Tahsil Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.......Applicants/ Claimants, --- Respondent(s)

¶34

MAC No. 1577 of 2017

¶35

1 - Smt. Seema W/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 25 Years,

¶36

2 - Ku. Khushboo D/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 1 Years

¶37

Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Seema W/o Late Jagendra Pal, Aged About 25 Years,

¶38

3 - Narayan Singh S/o Bishal, Aged About 50 Years

¶39

4 - Smt. Heera Bai W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 48 Years

¶40

All Cost Gond, R/o Village Ghotiya Thana And Tahsil Daundi District Balod, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, Appellants/Claimants

¶41

3

¶42

Versus

¶43

1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Parasmal Jain, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Daundi Thana And Tahsil Daundi District Balod, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Possession Holder, 2 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Tekuram Verma, R/o Village Ward No.72 Mathpara Birgaon Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam Bathena Chowk Patan Tahsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Registered Owner,

¶44

3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, In Front Of Sadily Stone In Front Of Dev Shri Takij Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurance Company,

¶45

4 - Manager Maruti Sujuki Megneto Show Room City Mall Telibandha Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Main Branch True Value Skay Auto Mobiles Hight G.E.Road Mohba Bazar Raipur,

¶46

5 - Moh. Nijam @ Nijamuddin S/o Gous Mohmmad, R/o House No.65 Gaytri Mandir Road Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent(s)

¶47

MAC No. 1592 of 2017

¶48

1 - Smt. Manki Bai W/o Late Murari Ram, Aged About 24 Years

¶49

2 - Ku. Kisamat D/o Late Murari Ram Aged About 3 Years

¶50

3 - Ku. Chandani, D/o Late Murari Ram Aged About 4 Years

¶51

Appellants No.2 to 3 are Minors Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Manki Bai W/o Late Murari Ram Aged About 24 Years,

¶52

4 - Bihau Ram, S/o Budharu Ram, Aged About 55 Years

¶53

5 - Smt. Kusum Bai, W/o Bihau Ram Aged About 50 Years

¶54

All R/o Village Post Khallari Thana And Tahsil Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ,

¶55

---Appellants/Claimants

¶56

Versus

¶57

1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Parasmal Jai Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Daundi Thana And Tahsil Daundi District Balod Chhattisgarh Driver And Possession Holder, 2 - Rajesh Kumar, S/o Tekuram Verma, R/o Village Ward No. 72 Mathapara, Birgaon Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam Bathena Chowk Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh Registered Owner

¶58

3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, In Front Of Sadiled Stones Devshri Takij Raod Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Insurance Company.

¶59

4 - Manager, Maruti Sujuki Megnoto Show Room City Mal Telibandha Raipur Chief Branch True Welue Skay Auto Mobiles Hight G. E. Road Mohba Bazar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶60

4

¶61

5 -Moh. Nijam @ Nija Mandir Raod Dhamtari,	muddin S/o Gous Mohmmad R/o House No. 65 Gaytri District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent(s)
For Appellant/insurer :	Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate in MAC Nos.1578 & 1579/2015 and for respondent No.3 in MAC Nos.1577/2017 & 1592/2017
For Respondents 1 to 3 in MAC No.1578 / 2015	: None.
For Respondent 4	: Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate in MAC Nos.1578 & 1579/2015 and for respondent No. 5 in MAC Nos.1577/2017 & 1592/2017.
For Respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9	: Ms. Diksha Bharati Jaiswal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 8 in MAC No.1579/2015.
For Appellants / Claimants in MAC Nos.1577 & 1592 of 2017	: Ms. Diksha Bharati Jaiswal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate.
For Respondents 1, 2 & 4 n MAC Nos.1577 & 1592of 2017	None.

¶62

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶63

C A V Judgment

¶64

Since all above captioned appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 02.04.2011, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶65

As per averments in claim petitions, on the fateful day of 02.04.2011 at 3:30 pm, the deceased Jagendrapal and Murariram along with other passengers were travelling in the Maruti Car 800 bearing registration CG/04/B/7418 (for short, the offending vehicle) and were going to village Naargaon, as soon as the the said car reached to Dhamtari road between the villages Jagtara and Jamruva, Nonapplicant No.1 – Santosh Kumar Jain drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the said car overturned, as a result of which, the passengers including Jagendrapal received serious injuries whereas Murariram has died, however, Jagendrapal was referred to Government Hospital, Daundi and then to B.S.P.Hospital, Sector-9 and ultimately he was referred to Shahid Hospital Dallirajhara where he died on 12.06.2011 during course of treatment.

¶66

Owing to death of Jagendrapal, his legal heirs, i.e., wife Smt. Seema, minor

¶67

5

¶68

daughter Khushabu and parents, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act), registered as Claim Case No. 63/2014, seeking total compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, he was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.130/- per day by working as labourer.

¶69

Similar claim petition was also filed, which was registered as Claim Case No. 64/2014, by the wife Manki Bai, minor daughters and parents, legal representatives of deceased Murariram, and in claim petition, they sought total compensation to the tune of Rs.19,34,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating therein that at the time of accident, the deceased Murariram was 30 years age and was earning Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month, by working as mason.

¶70

It is not disputed that at the time of accident, Non-applicant No.1 was possession holder and was driving the offending vehicle Car, Non-applicant No.2 was the registered owner whereas Non-applicant No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the facts that Non-applicant No.2 sold the offending vehicle to Non-applicant No.4 – Sky Automobiles and the said Non-applicant No.4, in turn, sold the same to Non-applicant No.5 Mohd, Nizam, are also not disputed.

¶71

The claim petitions were resisted by the Non-applicants by filing their written statements separately. Claimants and Non-applicants led their evidence, oral and documentary.

¶72

After appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 28.08.2015, held Nonapplicant No.1/driver – Santosh Kumar jain liable for cause of accident; on account of such accident deceased persons – Jagendrapal and Murariram sustained grievous injuries and died; Non-applicant No.3-United India Insurance Company Limited could not prove breach of policy conditions; assessed and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- in claim case No. 63/2014 and Rs.4,67,000/- in claim case No. 64/2014, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation while fastening the liability upon the Non-

¶73

6

¶74

applicants jointly or severally and further held Non-applicant No.3 / insurance company primarily liable as it could not prove the violation of policy conditions.

¶75

Being aggrieved by the award dated 28.08.2015, the insurer, i.e., Nonapplicant No.3 – United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred two appeals, being MAC No. 1578/2015 and MAC No.1579/2015, seeking exoneration from its liability whereas, the respective claimants have also preferred separate appeals, being MAC No. 1577/29017 and MAC No.1592/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶76

Arguments in MAC Nos.1578/2015 & 1579/2015 filed by the insurance company

¶77

Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the insurer, i.e., United India Insurance Company, while referring to Ex.D.1 filed on behalf of the insurance company, would submit that the offending vehicle Car is a Private Car and was having ‘Act Only Policy’ which admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car and there was no ‘Comprehensive or Package Policy’ and if the policy is a ‘‘Comprehensive or Package Policy’, the liability would be covered, therefore, the deceased persons, who are travelling in the said Car being occupants, were not covered under the insurance policy. In this regard, he placed reliance of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 wherein the Supreme Court held that ‘an Act policy’ stands on a different footing from a ‘comprehensive/package policy’. He would further submit that in MAC Nos.1577 and 1592 of 2017, the age of the deceased persons was 30 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, but the multiplier of 18 used by the learned Tribunal is on higher side whereas the applicable multiplier would be 17, as per the decision of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶78

Arguments of claimants in MAC No.1579/2015 and appellants in MAC

¶79

Nos.1577/2017 & 1592/2017

¶80

Per contra, Ms. Diksha Bharati Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondentsclaimants and for the appellants would submit that the claimants/appellants

¶81

7

¶82

pleaded that deceased persons were engaged in labour works and masonry works, and Jagendrapal used to earn Rs.130/- whereas Murariram was earning Rs.200/per day, but the learned Claims Tribunal, on the notional basis, assessed the monthly income of the deceased persons’ at Rs.3,000/-, which is on lower side. and not in consonance with minimum wages provisions. As per minimum wages provisions, even if the deceased persons are considered to be unskilled labour, then Jagendrapal could have easily earned Rs.3,900/- whereas Murariram could have easily earned Rs.4,136/- and prayed for fixing the monthly income at Rs.3,900/- & Rs.4,136/- per month respectively. She would further submit that in both claim cases, the learned Claims Tribunal adopted the deduction of 1/3rd, which is not just and proper and the correct deduction applicable would be 1/4th depending on the strength of family members. She would next submit that no amount under the head ‘loss of future prospects’ has been added by the learned Claims Tribunal and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side. She relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶83

Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for respondent – Mohd Nijam @ Nijamuddin in all the above captioned appeals would submit that no separate appeal has been preferred against the impugned award and would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal, after due appreciation of the evidence and material documents, was justified in awarding fair and reasonable compensation in all claim cases, therefore, no interference would be called for.

¶84

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶85

MAC Nos.1578/2015 & 1579/2015 filed by the insurance company

¶86

To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, i.e., the United India Insurance Company Limited, it would be apt to refer to the Ex.D.1, insurance policy for the offending vehicle Car. A perusal of

¶87

8

¶88

Ex.D.1 would reveal that it is a ‘Liability Only Policy’ for private car, i.e., offending vehicle. If we minutely scrutinize the said policy, then it is clear that the insurance company had collected premium of Rs.670/- for third party and Rs.25/- for employee of the Car and no amount has been shown to be obtained by the insurance company for the occupants travelling in the said Car.

¶89

The Supreme Court, in Balakrishnan and another (supra), while dealing with the ‘Act policy’, held that an ‘Act policy’ cannot cover the risk of an occupant in a car and only a ‘comprehensive/package policy’ would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car, held in paragraph 26, which reads as under:

¶90

In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act policy” stands on a different footing from a “comprehensive/package policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.”

¶91

In the light of what has been stated in Ex.D.1, insurance policy, and in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the above referred case (supra), it is quite vivid that admittedly, the deceased persons were the occupants in the said Car and on the fateful date of accident unfortunately, it met with an accident claiming the lives of both of them and indisputably, Ex.D.1 is ‘Act only policy” where it has nowhere been mentioned that the insurance company obtained the premium for covering the risk of occupants in the Car and in absence of premium obtained by the insurer, then how could the insurance company be liable for payment of compensation. In that view of the matter, the appellant/insurer, i.e., United India

¶92

9

¶93

Insurance Company Limited deserves to be exonerated as it cannot at all cover the risk of an occupant in a car.

¶94

MAC No. 1577 of 2017 filed by the claimants (deceased Jagendrapal)

¶95

Now I shall focus on the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal in the claim case No.63/2014. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimant A.W.1 Seema pleaded and also deposed in her statement that the deceased was working as labourer and used to earn Rs.130/- per day, i.e., Rs.3900/- per month, but in absence of any documentary proof thereof, the Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. Considering the fact that accident occurred in the year 2011 and statement of A.W.1 Seema with respect to income of the deceased and also looking to the nature of job of the deceased and further considering the minimum wages provisions for the unskilled labour prevailing at the relevant time, which was more than Rs.3,900/-, I, therefore, propose to reassess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,900/- per month.

¶96

MAC No. 1592 of 2017 filed by the claimants (deceased Murariram)

¶97

In this claim case also, the claimants pleaded that the deceased Murariram used to earn Rs.200/- per day by working in bore-well vehicle and from masonry work and in the statement of A.W.1 Mankibai also, she deposed the same pleading and in absence of any documentary proof thereof, the learned Claims Tribunal, on notional basis, has assessed the monthly income of deceased Murariram at Rs.3,000/-, which is on lower side and not in accordance with minimum wages provisions, which was Rs.4,136/- for unskilled labourer. Considering the accident occurred in the year 2011 and further considering the minimum wages provisions prevailing at the relevant time, I propose to reassess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,136/- per month, which meets the ends of justice.

¶98

A perusal of impugned awards would also reveal that the learned Claims

¶99

10

¶100

Tribunal has erred in not adding loss of future prospects and that just and reasonable amounts on other conventional heads also appear to be on lower side. Besides, the multiplier used by the Tribunal is also on higher side. Moreover, 1/3rd deduction as applied by the Tribunal also appears to be not sustainable, as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra).

¶101

Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner :-

¶102

MAC No.1577/2017 (Claim Case No.63/2014) (Deceased Jagendra Pal)

¶103

S.No.	Description	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income of the deceased at Rs.3,900/- per month.	46,800/- p.a.
2.	40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects	18,720/-
3.	Total annual income of the deceased	65,520/-
4.	Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency.	11,13,840/-
5.	1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (11,13,840 – Rs.2,78,460/-)	8,35,380/-
6.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
8.	Loss of spousal consortium to wife (appellant No.1), parental consortium to appellants No. 2 and filial consortium to parents (respondents No.3 & 4) (Rs.40,000/- each)	1,60,000/-
	Total compensation	10,25,380/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	4,62,000/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	5,63,380/-

¶104

Thus, the claimants, legal heirs of deceased Jagendrapal, are entitled to get

¶105

additional compensation of Rs.5,63,380/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶106

MAC No.1592/2017 (Claim Case No.64/2014) (Deceased Murariram)

¶107

S.No.		Description	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income of month.	the deceased at Rs.4,136/- per	49,632/- p.a.
2.	40% of(1)	above to be added towards future	19,853/-

¶108

11

¶109

	prospects
3.	Total annual income of the deceased	69,485/-
4.	Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency.	11,81,245/-
5.	1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (11,81,245/- – Rs.2,95,311/-)	8,85,934/-
6.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
8.	Loss of spousal consortium to wife (appellant No.1), parental consortium to appellants No. 2 and filial consortium to parents (respondents No.3 & 4) (Rs.40,000/- each)	2,00,000/-
	Total compensation	11,15,934/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	4,67,000/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	6,48,934/-

¶110

Accordingly, the claimants, legal heirs of deceased Murariram, are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.6,48,934/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶111

In the light of foregoing discussion, the insurance company, i.e., United India Insurance Company Limited is exonerated from its liability as it could prove that under the ‘Act only Policy’, the risk of occupants in the car cannot be covered under the ‘Act only policy’. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability primarily on the insurance company as it could not prove breach of policy conditions, is set aside.

¶112

As per the impugned awards, the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that of evidence available on record, held the Nonapplicants including insurer liable jointly or severally for payment of compensation to the claimants, however, this Court, on finding that since the policy is ‘Act only policy’ and it cannot cover the risk of an occupant in car, exonerated the insurance company from its liability.

¶113

Now, so far as liability to indemnify the compensation is concerned, admittedly, along with the insurance company, the claimants in MAC No.1577/2017 and MAC No.1592/2017 have arrayed the other respondents as Non-applicants

¶114

12

¶115

and except insurance company, the other respondents, mentioned in MAC No.1577/2017 and MAC No.1592/2017 as Non-applicants in claim petitions, are held liable jointly or severally, as held by the learned Claims Tribunal, to indemnify the compensation and accordingly, they are directed to deposit the compensation, as mentioned above, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of 2 months.

¶116

In the result, MAC No. 1578 of 2015 and MAC No.1579/2015 filed by the appellant / insurance company are allowed and the appeals being MAC No.1577/2017 and MAC No.1592/2017 filed by the claimants are allowed in part with the modification in the impugned awards to the above extent. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned awards shall remain in tact.

¶117

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶118

Anjani

Smt. Manki Bai v. Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manki Bai v. Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chameli Rajput Vs Sarbind Kumar Yadav

Shringarika General Stores Vs Shri Iqbal Khan

Neelam Sahu Vs Narad Nagwanshi

Smt. Seema Vs Santosh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar