Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sangeeta

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 617 of 2018

¶5

VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.10 17:10:32 +0530

¶7

1 - Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, At Present Vidhan Sabha Road, Simran Tower, 2nd Floor, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.18-H-0983), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Sangeeta Wd/o Late Motilal Bhaskar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gamavada, Thana Bhansi, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Budru Ram S/o Late Hidiya Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Gamavada, Thana Bhansi, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - (Deleted) Smt. Payeke (Dead) As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 24-082021.

¶13

4 - Satayajeet Tikadar R/o C/o Pappu Roadlines, Kirandul, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-18H-0983), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Raju Jaiswal S/o Aditya Prasad Jaiswal R/o Main Market, Bcheli, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-18-H-0983), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents : None.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

10/11/2025

¶21

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Member-Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, Distt. Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 33/2014 whereby an amount of Rs. 13,68,280/- has been 4,55,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3 for their irreparable loss.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 3, being the wife and parents of deceased Motilal Bhaskar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 20,25,160/-, alleging that on 10.06.2011, while the deceased was traveling on a motorcycle with his cousin towards Tongpal for joining his new service, he met with an accident near village Hitwar when the driver of the offending truck bearing No. CG-18H-0983 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing his death. The deceased was stated to be 28 years old and newly employed as a peon earning Rs. 6,070/- per month, and the claimants claimed to be fully dependent on his

¶23

3

¶24

income. The owner and driver of the truck admitted the accident but denied involvement of the said truck and also contended contributory negligence, while the appellant-insurer also denied liability and raised objections regarding non-involvement of the vehicle, validity of the driver’s licence, income, dependency, and contributory negligence. The Tribunal, however, after trial, decided the issues in favor of the claimants and passed the award against the appellant, which is now assailed on the grounds of improper inquiry, failure to frame and decide material issues, and erroneous computation of compensation.

¶25

The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,070/- per month, i.e., Rs. 72,840/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 12,38,280/-. In addition, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded towards Loss of Estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, and Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium, thereby making the total compensation amount Rs. 13,68,280/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence and material available on record. The Tribunal failed to conduct proper inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994,

¶27

4

¶28

and did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The claimants failed to prove the actual income of the deceased, as although an appointment order was produced, both PW-1 and PW-3 categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the deceased had not joined his service and, therefore, had no income on the date of the accident, which the Tribunal completely ignored while computing compensation. Despite this, the Tribunal erroneously applied addition of 50% towards future prospects relying upon an inapplicable judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is impermissible in the absence of any proved income. Further, the amount awarded under the heads of consortium, love and affection is on the higher side and not supported by evidence. Hence, the award is liable to be modified and reduced by this Hon’ble Court.

¶29

None appears for the respondents.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and perused the material available on record.

¶31

Though learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed, from the pleadings as well as from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the deceased had been appointed as a Peon and was to join his duties on the fateful day of the incident in which he unfortunately lost his life. From the recruitment and appointment order itself, it is evident that the deceased was to receive a sum of Rs. 6,070/- per month as salary. However, due to the unfortunate

¶32

5

¶33

accident, he could not assume his duties and receive the said amount.

¶34

Therefore, even though the appellant–Insurance Company has prayed for reconsideration of the assessment of income, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and passed the award.

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed .

¶36

sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Vishakha

Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sangeeta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sangeeta

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

Gaukaran Singh Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Amritbai Binjhvar

Mukesh Khatik Vs General Director, Central Industrial Security Force

Pushpa Kiran Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prasann Kumar Bhatpahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh