Dismissed¶32

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through Claim Manager v. Hardip Singh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jan 2025MAC/372/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 372 of 2021; 2025:CGHC:221; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; decided 02/01/2025; HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hardip Singh & others; motor accident claim appeal under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act; truck CG-04-JB-4765 alleged false implication; FIR by Salvender Singh; TATA ACE reference in MLC; 20% contributory negligence upheld; 80% functional disability upheld; right-hand amputation; Lathe Operator; award dated 18.03.2021 affirmed by dismissal of appeal; amendment application rejection attained finality; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; interim order earlier granted vacated. ¶32

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; interim order earlier granted vacated.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-4765 was involved in the accident or was falsely implicated as the offending vehicle (as urged by the insurer-appellant). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The Insurance Company could not bring any clinching evidence to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved; the learned Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that the claimant sustained injuries from the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-4765.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The appellant did not challenge the order dated 15.03.2021 rejecting its amendment application and took no ground to assail it; the false-implication plea raised for the first time before this Court therefore could not succeed.

¶28

Key takeaways

Since the claimant's right hand was outside the window and the truck rushed and rubbed against the bus causing amputation, the Tribunal rightly assessed contributory negligence of the claimant at 20%.ratio¶29
As the claimant worked as a Lathe Operator (skilled labourer) and amputation of his right hand would certainly affect his livelihood, the Tribunal rightly assessed functional disability at 80%.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents appeal by insurer (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.) against the Tribunal's award dated 18.03.2021 in favour of claimant Hardip Singh, whose right hand was amputated when a truck (CG-04-JB-4765) allegedly drove close to the bus in which he was travelling — DISMISSED. Held: (i) the insurer's plea that the truck was falsely implicated was taken for the first time in appeal; its amendment application had been rejected on 15.03.2021 and, being unchallenged, attained finality; the FIR lodged by the claimant's uncle specifically named the truck, and the insurer produced no clinching evidence of non-involvement, so the Tribunal's finding on involvement was upheld; (ii) 20% contributory negligence upheld, the claimant's right hand having been outside the bus window; (iii) 80% functional disability upheld, the claimant being a Lathe Operator/skilled labourer whose livelihood would be affected by the amputation. No order as to costs; interim order vacated. Award quantum not stated in the judgment. Note: the judgment records the accident date as 24.11.2018 in the claim pleading but as 24.01.2018 per the FIR.

2025:CGHC:221

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 372 of 2021

¶6

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Claim Manager Local Office 3rd Floor, Chaula Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001........(Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg04 Jb 4765)

¶7

... Appellant(s) versus

¶8

1. Hardip Singh S/o Late Jasvinder Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Arya Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh .......Claimant

¶9

2. Rinku Pal S/o Gajanan Pal Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Indira Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Thana Supela Tahsil And District Durg Chhattigarh .......Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Jb 4765

¶10

3. M/s Dalbir Singh And Sons Through Prop. Dalbir Singh R/o 45/a, Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ..........Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Jb 4765

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant	:	Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate
For Respondents	:	None, though served.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶14

02/01/2025

¶15

(1) Facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1/ injured filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of bodily injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2018. As per averments in the application, respondents No. 2 & 3 were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No.- CG-04-JB-4765 and the present appellant was the insurer.

¶16

(2) It is pleaded that the claimant/applicant was travelling in a bus on the fateful da y and when the bus reached Angora G.E. Road, the driver of

¶17

¶18

the offending vehicle while driving his truck rashly and negligently came very close to the bus and right hand of the claimant, which was outside the window got amputated. The claimant also sustained injuries over other parts of his body and was hospitalized at District Hospital, Durg and thereafter, he was taken to Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur. It is further pleaded that the accident was reported to P.S. Pulgaon thereafter an FIR was registered and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The claimant also pleaded that he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month by working as a Lathe Operator at Sona Garage, Rasmada, District-Durg. The driver and owner of the offending truck filed their written statement and denied the allegations. They specifically stated that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Insurance Company also filed its written statement and took a plea that they were not communicated about the incident; there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; and, the claimant himself was negligent as his right hand was outside the window of the bus. Parties led evidence; the Insurance Company examined one Kriparam Thakur as DW/2 who was a Constable at P.S. City Kotwali, District-Durg. He stated that he was informed by the driver of the bus that one TATA ACE caused the accident.

¶19

(3) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company submits that the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-4765 was not involved in the accident. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 27.01.2018 by one Salvender Singh, who is the uncle of the claimant and at the time of the registration of the FIR, for the first time, he stated that the accident was caused by a truck bearing registration No. CG04-JB-4765. He contends that the truck was falsely implicated as the

¶20

¶21

offending vehicle and the Supurdnama of the offending vehicle was taken by the brother of respondent No. 2. He further contends that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law by holding that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and assessed functional disability of the claimant up to the extent of 80%. He prays that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed.

¶22

(4) No one appeared on behalf of the claimant, driver and owner of the offending vehicle despite service of notice.

¶23

(5) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company at length and perused the record.

¶24

(6) From a perusal of the FIR dated 27.01.2018 lodged by Salvender Singh (uncle of claimant), it is apparent that the accident took place on 24.01.2018. It was stated in the FIR that the claimant sustained injuries including the amputation of the right hand on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-4765. On the same date, the claimant was taken to the hospital and later on , he was referred for MLC by Kriparam Thakur (NA/3’s DW/2). In MLC, it is stated that Constable Kriparam Thakur was informed by the driver of the bus bearing registration No. CG-07-E-0655 that an unknown TATA ACE passed very close to the bus and the right hand of the claimant got amputated.

¶25

(7) A perusal of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company would show that no stand was taken with regard to the false involvement of the vehicle in the accident and for the first time, this ground is being taken before this Court. An application for amendment was moved before the Learned Tribunal but the same was rejected vide order dated 15.03.2021. The appellant herein failed to challenge

¶26

¶27

the said order and thus, it attained finality.

¶28

(8) In the instant appeal, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 and no ground has been taken to assail the order whereby the application for amendment was rejected. The claimant has examined himself as PW/1, who supported the case. He examined Dr. Akhilesh Yadav as PW/2 who proved the disability as well as the disability certificate. The insurance company examined its Manager i.e. Prem Dwivedi, who admitted that 20 months after the accident, a written report was lodged at the Police Station with regard to the false involvement of the Truck in the accident. Kriparam Thakur (Constable) was another witness of the Insurance Company. In FIR, Salvender Singh specifically stated that the vehicle bearing no. CG-04-JB-4765 caused the accident. The Insurance Company could not bring any clinching evidence on record to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved at all in the accident, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that the claimant sustained injuries from the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-4765.

¶29

(9) With regard to contributory negligence, the right hand of the claimant was outside the window; the truck rushed and rubbed against the bus which resulted in the amputation of the claimant’s right hand, therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the tune of 20%. As the claimant was working as a Lathe Operator as a skilled labourer and amputation of his right hand would certainly affect his livelihood, therefore, the functional disability has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of 80%.

¶30

(10) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good

¶31

¶32

ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal dated 18.03.2021. Consequently, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶33

(11) The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶34

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶35

Ajinkya

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through Claim Manager v. Hardip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through Claim Manager v. Hardip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richa Panwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunjram Lodha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonali Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daitari (Died and Deleted) (Through Legal Heirs)) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Tejbahadur Singh Vs Kuldeep Kour