Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Seema Manhare

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:6856

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1670 of 2016

¶6

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 R N T Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore M.P.

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

V ersus

¶9

1 - Smt. Seema Manhare W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Rounda, P.S. And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Yamini D/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Manhare, W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare Wrongly Mentioned As Marhare R/o Village Rounda, P.S. And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Lukky S/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Manhare, W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare Wrongly Mentioned As Marhare R/o Village Rounda, P.S. And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

¶11

..................Claimants

¶12

4 - Harpreet Kaur Manna W/o Balbir Singh, R/o G.E.Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .................Owner Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A/7847

¶13

5 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office Madina Building Jail Road, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

.................Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A/7847

¶15

6 - Anil Kumar Kumbhare S/o Suresh Kumbhare, Aged About 25 Years R/o Juni Mangalbari, Kubharbara Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur (M.H.)

¶16

................Driver Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B. 5561

¶17

2

¶18

7 - Smt. Pramila Sanjay Kapte W/o Sanjay Kapte, R/o 25 Juni Mangalbari, Kubharbara Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur (M.H.)

¶19

................Owner Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B. 5561

¶20

8 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lalganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Issued Office- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E/8, E.P.I.P. Richo Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, 302033 Rajasthan

¶21

................Insurer Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B. 5561

¶22

9 - Kailash Rangnath Kord S/o Rangnath Kord, R/o Sonari, Tahsil Sinnar, District Nashik (M.H.) .................. Driver Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369

¶23

10 - Gyanehswar Shri Rang Katare S/o Rang Katare, R/o Nifad, Tahsil Nifad, District Nashik (M.H.) ..................Owner Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369

¶24

11 - Amar Das Manhare S/o Kunwar Das Manhare, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patharpunji, P.S. And Tahsil- Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶25

.............Formal Non-Applicant Of The Deceased, District : Bemetara, (C.G.)

¶26

--- Respondents

¶27

MAC No. 1557 of 2016

¶28

1 - Shriram General Insurance Aged About 18 Years Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Lalganga, Shopping Mall, Third Floor, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Policy Issuing Office E-8, E P I P, R I C O Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur 302033 Rajasthan

¶29

................Insurer Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B./5561,

¶30

--- Appellant

¶31

Versus

¶32

1 - Smt. Seema Manhare W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, (C.G.)

¶33

2 - Ku. Yamini D/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented To Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Manhare, W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,(C.G.)

¶34

3

¶35

3 - Lucky S/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented To Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema Manhare, W/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, (C.G.) ..................Claimants

¶36

4 - Harpreet Kaur Mann W/o Balbeer Singh, R/o G.E.Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .................Owner Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A/7847

¶37

5 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .................Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A/7847

¶38

6 - Anil Kumar Kumbhare S/o Suresh Kumbhare, Aged About 25 Years R/o Juni Mangal Bari, Kumharpara, Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur Maharashtra

¶39

...............Driver Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B./5561

¶40

7 - Smt. Pramila Sanjay Kapte W/o Sanjay Kapte, R/o Juni Mangal Bari, Kumharpara, Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur (M.H.)

¶41

................Owner Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B./5561

¶42

8 - Kailash Rangnath Kord S/o Rangnath Kord, R/o Sonari, Tahsil Sinnar, District Nashik Maharashtra .................Driver Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369,

¶43

9 - Gyaneshwar Shrirang Katare S/o Rang Katare, R/o Nifard, Tahsil Nifard, District Nashik Maharashtra ..................Owner Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369,

¶44

10 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 4th Floor, Shop No.412, 413, Near Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address National Corporate Park, 5th Floor, Opposite Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶45

.................Insurer Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369

¶46

11 - Amar Das Manhare S/o Kunwar Das Manhare, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patharpunji, Police Station And Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ...............Father Of The Deceased Formal Non-Applicant, District : Bemetara (C.G.)

¶47

--- Respondents

¶48

4

¶49

MAC No. 571 of 2017

¶50

1 - Smt. Seema Manhare Wd/o Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶51

2 - Ku. Yamini D/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Seema Manhare Wd/o Chandraprakash Manhare Appellant No.1, R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶52

3 - Lucky S/o Late Chandraprakash Manhare, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Seema Manhare Wd/o Chandraprakash Manhare Appellant No.1, R/o Village Rouda, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶53

--- Appellants

¶54

Versus

¶55

1 - Harpreet Kaur Mann W/o Balbir Singh, R/o G.E.Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ...............Owner Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A 7847

¶56

2 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶57

...............Insurance Company Of Truck No. C.G.04 J A 7847

¶58

3 - Anil Kumar Kumbhare S/o Suresh Kumbhare, Aged About 25 Years R/o Juni Mangalbaari, Kubharbara, Nagpur, Tehsil And District Nagpur (M.H.)

¶59

..............Driver Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C B 5561

¶60

4 - Smt. Pramila Sanjay Kapte W/o Sanjay Kapte, R/o 25 Juni Mangalbari, Kubharbara Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur (M.H.)

¶61

................Owner Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C.B. 5561

¶62

5 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lalganga Shopping Mall, Third Floor, Raipur, Tehsil And District

¶63

Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Issuing Office Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8, E.P.I.P. Riko Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, 302033 Rajasthan

¶64

5

¶65

..............Insurance Company Of Swaraj Mazda No. M.H.31 C B 5561

¶66

6 - Kailash Rangnath Kord S/o Rangnath Kord, R/o Sonari, Tahsil Sinnar, District Nashik (M.H.) ..................Driver Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369

¶67

7 - Gyaneshwar Shrirang Katare S/o Rang Katare, R/o Nifaad, Tahsil Nifaad, District Nashik (M.H.) ..................Owner Of Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369

¶68

8 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Company Group, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Fourth Floor, Through Shop No. 412, 413 Near Ravi Bhavan Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ................Insurance Company Of Vehicle Tata Tipper M.H.15 C K 1369

¶69

9 - Amar Das Manhare S/o Kuwar Das Manhare, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patharpunji, Thana And Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara, (C.G.)

¶70

...............Father Of Deceased- Formal Party, District : Bemetara, (C.G.)

¶71

--- Respondents

¶72

For Appellant : Mr Saurabh Sharma & Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. in MAC No. 1670 of 2016 And For Respondents No. 10 and 8 in MAC No. 1557 /2016 & MAC No. 571/2017, respectively.

¶73

For Appellant : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate in MAC No. 1557 of 2016 And for Respondent No. 5 in MAC No. 571 of 2017

¶74

For Appellants : Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate in 571 of 2017 and for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3/Claimants in MAC No. 1670/2016 & MAC No. 1557 of 2016, respectively.

¶75

For Respondents : Mr. Arya Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sandeeep Shrivastava, Advocate in respondent No. 5 in MAC No. 1670 of 2016 & MAC No. 1557 /2016.

¶76

For Respondent No. 8 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate in MAC No. 1670 of 2016

¶77

For Respondents : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Adv. on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate in Resp. Nos. 9 & 10 in MAC No. 1670 / 2016 and Resp. Nos. 8 & 9 in MAC No. 1557 of 2016.

¶78

For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Adv.on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate in MAC No. 571 of 2017

¶79

¶80

6

¶81

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶82

Order on Board

¶83

06/02/2025

¶84

1. All these appeals are arising out of the common award dated 28.07.2016 passed by 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 01/2013, hence, these appeals are being heard analogously and disposed of by this order.

¶85

(For the sake of convenience, MAC No. 1670 of 2016 would be taken as lead case)

¶86

2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of these appeals are that on 16.10.2010, at about 5.30 AM, Chandraprakash Manhare (deceased), was returning to Raipur alongwith cleaner Siyaram Sahu by driving the Truck bearing registration No. CG-04, J.A., 7847 and when he reached at village, Anjani, Dondgaon, District Buldhana (M.H.), then respondent No. 6 - Anil Kumar Kumbharre, came towards Nagpur to Nashik, by driving Swaraj Majda bearing registration No. M.H. 31 C.B. 5561 (offending vehicle) rashly & negligently and dashed aforesaid Truck being driven by Chandraprakash Manhare. At the same time, driver of another offending vehicle Tata Tipper bearing registration No. M.H. 15, C.IK. 1369 (Tata Tipper) rashly & negligently dashed both the vehicles in the middle of both the vehicle, as a result of which driver of the Truck No. CG-04 JA 7847 namely Chandrapraksh Manhare and cleaner Siyaram Sahu sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself.

¶87

3. Unfortunate widow and children of deceased – Chandraprakash Manhare filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of ₹ 11,82,000/- for his death in the aforesaid motor accident occurred on 16.12.2010 from owner, driver and insurer of the aforesaid three vehicles.

¶88

7

¶89

4. Respondents filed their reply to the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, in which, they denied the allegations levelled against them and also denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶90

5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed as many as four issues and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, considered the same and passed impugned award dated 28.07.2016 granting compensation of ₹ 11,08,200/- against the owner, driver & insurer of both the offending Vehicles i.e. Swaraj Mazda and Tata Tipper.

¶91

6. MAC No. 1670 of 2016 & MAC No. 1557 of 2016 are filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Tata Tipper No. M.H. 15 C.K./1369) and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. M.H. 31 CB 5561) , respectively challenging the impugned award on the limited ground that instead of assessing annual income of the deceased as ₹ 40,000/- as per structured formula i.e. Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal has assessed annual income of the deceased as ₹ 59,400/- (after adding 50% towards future prospect i.e. ₹ 39,600 + ₹ 19,800), as such, assessment of the income of the deceased and total compensation on various heads granted in favour of the claimants are against the structured formula of second schedule appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. MAC No. 571 of 2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation under impugned award.

¶92

7. Learned counsel appearing for their respective appellants / Insurance Company would submit that they are not challenging liability part held against them, rather their challenge is only to the extent that in structured formula

¶93

8

¶94

envisaged under second schedule appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988, maximum income of deceased can be drawn to the extent of ₹ 40,000/per annum and the amounts to be paid in various conventional heads has also been shown in Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988, but learned Claims Tribunal has assessed more income of deceased, than fixed income of ₹ 40,000/- per annum by adding ₹ 19,800/- towards future prospect. But, in structured formula under Second Schedule, no such compensation has been provided. Therefore, yearly income of deceased cannot be assessed more than ₹ 40,000/- and even after calculating his income to the tune of ₹ 40,000/-, annual dependency amount of claimants ought to have been calculated as per Second Schedule and since, age of deceased was 30 years, therefore, loss of dependency amount would be Rs.680/- per thousand. As such, annual loss of dependency amount of claimants may be calculated Rs.680 x 40 = Rs.27,200/- and the amount granted in various conventional heads is also required to be reduced suitably in light of Second Scheduled appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988.

¶95

8. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants / claimants (MAC No. 571/ 2017) would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has assessed annual income of the deceased to the tune of 39,600/- and by adding 50% i.e. Rs. 19,800/-₹ on account of future prospect, assessed total annual income ₹ 59,400/whereas the deceased was working as Driver of Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JA 7847 and earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing such work, but learned Claims Tribunal has not considered this aspect in its true perspective, therefore, amount of compensation in various heads be increased suitably.

¶96

9

¶97

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record alongwith record of the Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶98

10. It is evident from the record of the Claims Tribunal that in instant case claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. The provisions contained in Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988 is a special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula based in terms of the Second Schedule to the Act. The said provision has an overriding effect as is apparent from the bare perusal of said section. It has been provided under sub-Section (2) that for any claim of compensation under subSection (1), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability was caused due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person. So far as section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 is concerned, the same is a general provision seeking compensation arising out of accident of motor vehicle in case of death or injury. It is not in dispute that claimants may opt to apply under Section 163-A or to apply under the general provisions of Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988.

¶99

11. The structural formula for computation under Section 163-A, as provided in Second Schedule, has various colums dealing with the age of victim and annual income of the victim. Different multipliers have been prescribed for different age group of victims and the compensation amount has been prescribed in a tabular form co-relating to the annual income of the victim. The Second Schedule has further conditions and also heads on compensation which, inter alia , includes –

¶100

(a) the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case

¶101

of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1 / 3rd in

¶102

10

¶103

consideration of expenses which the victim would have

¶104

incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive,

¶105

(b) Amount of compensation shall not be less than 50,000/-, ₹

¶106

(c) General damages (in case of death) -

¶107

(i) Funeral Expenses - 2,000/- ₹

¶108

(ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse - 5,000/- ₹

¶109

(iii) Loss of Estate - 2,500/- , ₹ and

¶110

(iv) Medical Expenses- actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding 15,000/-. ₹

¶111

12. In the instant case, vide impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed yearly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.39,600/- and has added 50% on it towards future prospect, as such, it has assessed the annual income of the deceased to the tune of 59,400/- [ 39,600/- + 19,800]. ₹ ₹ ₹

¶112

13. It is settled proposition of law that when claimants opt to file claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988, then they are not entitled to get future prospect on monthly / annual income of the deceased / victim.

¶113

14. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe r reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 their lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held in paragraph 37 of its judgment that principles relating to determination of liability and quantum of compensation are different for claims made under section 163A and under section 166 of MV Act. It has also been held that Section 163A and Second Schedule in terms do not apply to determination of compensation in applications under Section 166, however, it has been held that operative maximum multiplier should be increased to 18, even in cases under section 166 of MV Act, by borrowing the principle underlying section 163A and the Second Schedule and the multiplier prescribed

¶114

11

¶115

in Second Schedule has been rectified in terms of Colum 6 of the chart of Second Schedule in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

¶116

15. Since there is no concept of future prospect in Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the MV Act, therefore, granting amount towards future prospect by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants is not found to be sustainable. As such, annual income to the tune of 59,400/- assessed by the₹ Claims Tribunal is reduced to the extent of 39,600/-, which was actual annual₹ income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal without adding future prospect.

¶117

16. Having considered the aforesaid annual income of the deceased, it is rounded up to 40,000/- per annum, to calculate compensation under Second₹ Schedule, Rs.680 per thousand is required to be calculated having considered the age of the deceased at the time of incident i.e. 30 years, as such, annual loss of dependency of the claimants because of death of deceased is found to be 680 x 40 = 27,200/-.₹ ₹

¶118

17. Learned Claims Tribunal has also granted higher amount towards conventional heads, which is against the provisions of Second Schedule, as such, amount awarded on conventional heads is also required to be revisited and the total amount of compensation is required to be modified.

¶119

18. In view of above, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as per column 4 of the following table :-

¶120

Serial	Head	Awarded by the Tribunal	Awarded by this Court
No.
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4) *(As* *per* *second*
			*Schedule appended to* *Section 163 -A of the*
			*MV Act, 1988)*

¶121

12

¶122

1.	Income of the deceased	₹39,600/-	₹40,000/-
2.		50% is added towards future prospect, then, claimants’ annual income would be59,400/- ₹ [ 39,600/- + 19,800/-] ₹ ₹	Assuming loss of income at₹680, per Rs.1,000/- i.e. 680 x 40 = ₹ 27,200/- ₹
3.	1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased	59,400/- - 19,800/- ₹ ₹ 39,600/ ₹ -	27,200 - 9,067/- ₹ ₹ 18,133/- ₹
4.	Annual loss of dependency	39,600/- ₹	18,133/- ₹
5.	Multiplier of 17 for assessing total loss of dependency	39,600 X 17 = ₹ 6,73,200/- ₹	18,133/- x 18 ₹ = Rs.3,26,394/-
6.	Loss of consortium	1,00,000/- ₹	5,000/- ₹
7.	Funeral expenses	₹25,000/-	2,000/- ₹
8.	Loss of estate	10,000/- ₹	2,500/- ₹
9.	For Love & affection	2,00,000/- ₹	Nil.
10.	Total compensation	11,08,200/- ₹	3,35,894/- ₹

¶123

19 . For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellants/Claimants in MAC No. 571 /2017 for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶124

20. MAC No. 1670 of 2016 & MAC No. 1557 of 2016 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is allowed to the extent sketched hereinabove. Now, the

¶125

13

¶126

compensation of ₹ 11,08,200/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants is reduced to ₹ 3,35,894/- . Interest part and other directions of the Claims Tribunal mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent.

¶127

21. Amount of compensation, as modified hereinabove, shall be deposited by concerned non-claimants/respondents therein within a period of 60 days, if the same has not been deposited yet and it be disbursed to the claimants as per terms of the impugned award.

¶128

22. Consequently, MAC No. 1670 of 2016 & MAC No. 1557 of 2016 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively are allowed to the extent sketched hereinabove and MAC No. 571 /2017 filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation under impugned award is dismissed.

¶129

23. Record of Claims Tribunal be returned forthwith to the concerned Claims Tribunal alongwith copy of this order.

¶130

Sd/-

¶131

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶132

AMIT Digitally signedby AMIT KUMAR KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 DUBEY 11:12:19 +0530

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Seema Manhare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Seema Manhare

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

M/s Prem Stores Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Bhagwan Prasad Yadav Vs Chandan Das

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s Cosmos Casting India Ltd.

Tek Ram Vs Smt. Sunita Bai

Shriram General Insurance Vs Smt. Seema Manhare

Smt. Seema Manhare Vs Harpreet Kaur Mann