Dismissed¶46

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2025MAC/775/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 775 of 2019, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 20/06/2025 by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu. Insurer's quantum appeal under Section 173 MV Act 1988 and claimants' enhancement cross-appeal arising from award of Rs.30,49,353/- by MACT Bakunthpur (Koriya) in Claim Case No. 85 of 2017 for death of advocate/notary Dinesh Kumar Sahu in 08.08.2017 road accident. Income assessment sustained: Rs.2,08,460/- per annum from advocacy and notary work per Form 14 Notary Act statement (Ex.P-5C) plus Rs.36,000/- per annum presumed agricultural income; conventional heads affirmed; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; both the insurer's appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal were dismissed and the quantum of the Tribunal's award was left undisturbed. ¶46

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both the insurer's appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal were dismissed and the quantum of the Tribunal's award was left undisturbed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side while computing the compensation. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

On the evidence and documents on record (registration certificate Ex.P-2, renewed notary certificate Ex.P-4, witness statements of A.W.-1 to A.W.-3), it is clear that on the date of accident the deceased used to practise as an advocate and work as notary.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The finding of the learned Claims Tribunal assessing the deceased's annual income at Rs.2,08,460/- from advocacy and notary work and Rs.36,000/- as agricultural income was recorded after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence and does not call for any interference by this Court; the contention that the jointly-held agricultural land could not yield exclusive income to the deceased therefore fails.

¶44

Key takeaways

The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under other conventional heads, not being disputed by the parties, is affirmed.ratio¶45
Both the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company and the cross-appeal filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 have no merit and are dismissed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 appeal by insurer against quantum of award dated 04.12.2018 (Claim Case No. 85 of 2017, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bakunthpur, District Koriya) awarding Rs.30,49,353/- in a death case; claimants' cross-appeal sought enhancement. Deceased Dinesh Kumar Sahu (43), an advocate and notary, died in the collision of 08.08.2017 between his Maruti Alto car and a Bolero Mahindra Pick-up. Held: the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's annual income — Rs.2,08,460/- from advocacy and notary work (based on the Form 14 statement under the Notary Act, Ex.P-5C) and Rs.36,000/- as presumed agricultural income — was a finding recorded on appreciation of documentary and oral evidence and calls for no interference; compensation under the other conventional heads, being undisputed, is affirmed. The appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 775 of 2019

¶5

1 - Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Banarash Chowk Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Through Assistant Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶6

--- Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years

¶9

2 - Ku. Priti Sahu D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years

¶10

3 - Saty Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through His Natural Guardina Mother Smt. Sunita Sahu, No.1 to 3 all are R/o Village Sonhat Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Smt. Priyanka Sahu D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Salhi, Police Station And Tehsil Ramanujnagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Smt. Koushilya Sahu W/o Late Ramkripal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Dabripara Police Station Patna Tehsil Baikunthpur Presently, R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6 - Samaylal S/o Somarsai Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Amhar Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶14

7 - Suraj Yadav S/o Ramdeo Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Bhandi Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶15

8 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Kripal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dabripara, Police Sation Patna, Tehsil Baikuntpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶16

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶17

9 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot N. 3, Sector - 29, Gurgaon Hariyana, Branch Office, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

--- Respondents

¶19

¶20

For Appellant	: Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 5	: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.9	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

20/06/2025

¶24

Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the quantum of impugned award dated 04.12.2018, passed in Claim Case No. 85 of 2017, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bakunthpur, District – Koriya has awarded Rs.30,49,353/- as compensation in a death case.

¶25

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.87,10,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Dinesh Kumar Sahu, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 08.08.2017, Dinesh Kumar Sahu was driving a Maruti Alto car bearing registration number CG 16 CE 2771, owned by non-applicant No. 4 and insured by nonapplicant No. 5. He was returning to his residence at Village Sonhat from his in-laws’ village, Badsara, District Surajpur. At approximately 1:45 p.m., when he reached near Village Kachradand, the offending vehicle -Bolero Mahindra Pick-up bearing registration number CG 16 A 2056—being driven by non-applicant No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite direction, dashed the Alto car. As a

¶26

¶27

result of the collision, the Alto car lost control and collided with a roadside tree. Dinesh Kumar Sahu, who was travelling in the said vehicle, sustained severe injuries, including chest trauma, fractured ribs, and leg injuries. He was immediately taken to the Community Health Centre, Sonhat, for treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Dinesh Kumar Sahu was 43 years of young and healthy man, was practicing as an Advocate working as Notary and was also doing agricultural work and from where he earned Rs.40,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to his untimely death, the claimants suffered loss.

¶28

The non-applicants No1 and 2 filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded the accident was not occurred due negligence of respondent No.2. The offending vehicle pick-up was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Nonapplicant No.2 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Respondent No.3 also filed reply to the claim application and it was pleaded that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. He did not know how to drive the car properly. The accident was not occurred by the vehicle insured. The claim application was filed on false ground in order to get compensation exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the pick-up vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and it was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy and without any permit and fitness certificate.

¶29

¶30

The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.30,49,353/-.

¶31

Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that though the multiple grounds has been raised in the memo of appeal, however, she is challenging the award in this appeal on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on higher side. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration, the agricultural income overlooking the documentary evidence which shows that the agricultural property is recorded in the joint name of two brothers, hence, it cannot be considered to be exclusive income of the deceased.

¶32

Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary evidence has assessed the income of the deceased as notary of Rs.2,08,460/- and further Rs.36,000/- from other sources. The income assessed from other sources of Rs.36,000/- is very meager in the facts of the case, where deceased was a registered Advocate and was appointed as Notary and further contesting the litigation as an Advocate. The claimants have also filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

¶35

The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on higher side and has also taken the agricultural income of the deceased while computing the amount of compensation. However, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 have filed the crossappeal on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side.

¶36

To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and claimants/respondents No.1 to 5, the pleadings of the claim application and the evidence is examined.

¶37

In the claim application, claimants have pleaded that on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Dinesh Kumar Sahu was 43 years and was earning monthly income of Rs.40,000/- by working as an advocate, notary and from agricultural work. To support their claim, the claimants have examined Satyam Kumar Sahu (A.W.-1), who in his statement stated that deceased Dinesh Kumar Sahu was an Advocate and besides being an advocate, he also worked as a notary in Sonhat. Registration certificate issued by State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh of his father as an advocate is placed on record as Ex.P-2. He also stated that notary certificate of his father was renewed as per Ex.P-4. Sant Kumar Sahu (A.W.-2) has stated in his evidence that on several occasion, he had got notary work done in the tahsil office from deceased Dinesh Sahu and deceased has been doing notary work alone in Tehsil- Sonhat. Krishna Dutta Sharma (A.W.-3) has stated in his evidence that deceased was working as an advocate since 1995

¶38

¶39

and he was also registered as a notary since 2008 and used to do notary work in Tehsil – Sonhat. On perusal of the aforesaid evidence and the documents placed on record, it is clear that on the date of accident, the deceased used to practice as an advocate and work as notary.

¶40

Satyam Kumar Sahu (A.W.-1) has further stated in his evidence that his father, Dinesh Kumar Sahu, has submitted statement/particulars with respect to work of notary of the year 2016 in Form 14 under the Notary Act to the District and Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur. The said document was exhibited as Ex.P-5C according to which the deceased earned/charged the fee of Rs. 2,555 for verifying documents (73 cases) and Rs. 2,05,905 for administering oaths and affidavits (5,883 cases), totaling Rs. 2,08,460/- as his income for 2016 from the work of notary.

¶41

Satyam Kumar Sahu (A.W.-1) has further stated in his evidence that his father owned agricultural land in village Sonhat, from which he earned approximately Rs. 10,000 per month. He produced documents including B1 certificates (Ex.P-6, P-9), Khasra maps (Ex.P-7, P-10), and land maps (Ex.P-8) showing individual ownership of the of Khasra No. 575/3 (0.610 hectare) and joint ownership of Khasra No. 72 (0.330 hectare). However, no conclusive evidence was presented regarding the exact monthly or annual income from this land.

¶42

The learned Claims Tribunal, upon examining the document Ex.P-5C, determined the deceased’s annual income from advocacy and notary work to be Rs. 2,08,460/-. Since the claimants did not provide conclusive evidence to support a monthly agricultural income of Rs.

¶43

¶44

10,000/- the Tribunal presumed the agricultural income to be Rs. 3,000 per month (Rs.36,000/- per annum). The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal by assessing the annual income of the deceased to be of Rs.2,08,460/- from advocacy and notary work and Rs.36,000/- as agricultural income is the finding recorded after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record, which in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference.

¶45

Since the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under other conventional heads is not disputed by the parties, hence, it is hereby affirmed.

¶46

For the forgoing discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company as also the cross-appeal filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 have no merit and are hereby dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

Balram

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sunita Sahu

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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanjay Netam

Kheek Bai Vs Bheem Kaushik

Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Radhika Bai Kosle

Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav

Lalchand Vs Bickky Kumar Soni