Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Vs Smt. Swarnmala Sahu

¶1

Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-833-2023

¶2

2025:CGHC:33716

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 833 of 2023

¶6

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶7

[Arising out of award dated 01.02.2023, passed in Claim Case No.27 of 2020 (Smt. Swarnmala Sahu v. Shankar Nag and others) by the 3^rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar (CG)]

¶8

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Through - Its Legal Manager, Present Address - Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Smt. Swarnmala Sahu W/o Khilesh Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Near State Bank Of India, Main Road, Dantewada, District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶12

2 - Shankar Nag S/o Late Sukman Nag Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Service R/o Ambedkar Ward No. 01, Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶13

3 - Dilip Sahu S/o Kuber Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Near State Bank Of India, Main Road, Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Owner)

¶14

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. M. Dubey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶16

(Order on Board)

¶17

16.07.2025

¶18

1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,

¶19

1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is

¶20

Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-833-2023

¶21

calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 01.02.2023, passed in Claim Case No.27 of 2020 (Smt. Swarnmala Sahu v. Shankar Nag and others) by 3^rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar (CG), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.01/claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.12,34,252/- has been awarded alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of accident till its actual realization on account of death of her husband, namely, Khilesh Sahu, who was aged about 33 years and was working as Assistant Grade-III in the office of Public Prosecution, Dantewada.

¶22

2. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in allowing the claim application of the claimant. He vehemently argued that claimant was only having disability of temporary nature, but the learned AMACT has treated the same to be 10% permanent disability and, therefore, the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,04,252/- awarded under the head of disability/loss of income is unsustainable and bad in law. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶23

3. On the other hand, Mr. M. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

¶24

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-833-2023

¶26

5. In the instant case, the disability certificate (Ex.P/15A) issued by the Medical Board to the respondent No.01/Claimant shows that she is having permanent disability to the extent of 42%, which the learned MACT has taken only 10% and calculated the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,04,252/- by taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20981 X 12 = 251772 + 125886 (i.e. 50% of 251772 for future prospect) = 377658 X 10/100 X 16 (multiplier). Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain into the said findings recorded by the learned AMACT while allowing the claim application of the claimant and quantifying the said amount of Rs.6,04,252/- under the head of disability/loss of income.

¶27

6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost.

¶28

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶29

s@if

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. v. Smt. Swarnmala Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. v. Smt. Swarnmala Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Photo Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Moti Bai Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited

Divisional Manager Vs Shyamlal Netam

Pitambar @ Poshan Nishad Vs Shivprasad Singh

Smt. Mina Devi Vs Pravin Bairagi

Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh