Allowed¶38

Rameshwari Markhandey v. Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Chhattisgarh HC14 Apr 2026MAC/1000/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MAC No. 1000 of 2019; Sanjay K. Agrawal J (Single Bench); decided 15.04.2026. Keywords: personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver; extra premium Rs.50/-; contractual liability limited to Rs.1,00,000/-; deceased son driving motorcycle with valid and effective driving licence; interest @7.5% from date of filing of claim application; deposit within 30 days; appeal against rejection of claim by MACT Raipur allowed; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik (2018) 9 SCC 801; Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. (2020) 2 SCC 550; Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, to be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶38

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, to be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under the personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver in insurance policy (Ex.D-1), the deceased son having driven the offending motorcycle, and if so, to what extent is the insurer's liability.

¶23

Court's answer

The insurance policy (Ex.D-1) covers the personal accident of owner-cum-driver and an extra premium of Rs.50/- has been paid; the actual liability is Rs.1,00,000/-, subject to the person holding a valid and effective driving licence.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The deceased had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.

¶37

Key takeaways

The appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, to be deposited within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.02.2019 of the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (Claim Case No. 413/2015) rejecting the claimants' compensation claim. The insurance policy (Ex.D-1) covered the personal accident of owner-cum-driver, for which an extra premium of Rs.50/- had been paid, confining the insurer's liability to Rs.1,00,000/- provided the driver held a valid and effective driving licence. The deceased, who was driving the offending motorcycle, admittedly held a valid and effective driving licence. Relying on National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801, and Ramkhiladi & Another v. United India Insurance Company & Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550, the Court held the claimants entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, payable within 30 days. Appeal allowed to that extent.

2026:CGHC:17221

ASHOK SAHU

NAFR

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.15 18:25:46 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1000 of 2019

¶7

1 - Rameshwari Markhandey, W/o. Late Mukesh Markhandey, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Devpuri, Satnam Chowk, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Rishabh Markhandey, S/o. Late Mukesh Markhandey, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Rameshwari Markhandey. R/o. Devpuri, Satnam Chowk, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Vanshika Markhandey, D/o. Late Mukesh Markhandey, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Rameshwari Markhandey. R/o. Devpuri, Satnam Chowk, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Smt. Dropati Markhandey, W/o. Late Pyare Lal Markhandey, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Q-7 D, Sector -7 Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 07/ A.C. 5655).

¶13

2 - Bajaj Allince General Insurer Company Limited, Branch Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandri, Thana Mova (Pandri) Tahsil And District Raipur,

¶14

¶15

Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 07/A.C./5655)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellants : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

¶18

(Single Bench)

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

15.04.2026

¶22

The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 413/2015, by which the claim application of the claimants for grant of compensation has been rejected finding no merit.

¶23

Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the vehicle’s registered owner is father and vehicle was being driven by son Mukesh Markhandey, who died in the accident and he being the driver covered under the insurance policy (Ex.D-1) as for the personal accident of owner-cum-driver an extra premium of Rs.50/- has been paid, therefore, the liability

¶24

¶25

would be confined to Rs. 1,00,000/-, which should have been awarded.

¶26

Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/respondent No.2, would support the impugned award and submit the the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the records meticulously.

¶28

The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others 1 has held that contractual liability is limited and held in para 9 as under :-

¶29

“9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs.2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation. Hence the appellant is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @9% per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.”

¶30

The principles of law laid down in Ashalata Bhowmik (supra)

¶31

has further been followed in the matter of Ramkhiladi & Another

¶32

2 . v. United India Insurance Company & Another

¶33

1 (2018) 9SCC 801

¶34

2 (2020) 2 SCC 550

¶35

¶36

The insurance policy (Ex.D-1) proved by Rishabh Pandey (NAW-1) also covers the personal accident of owner-cum-driver and premium of Rs.50/- has been paid and the actual liability would be Rs.1,00,000/-, but the person must have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.

¶37

Admittedly, the deceased has a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, the appellants will be entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- along-with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of claim application. The compensation amount will be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

¶39

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Ashok

Rameshwari Markhandey v. Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwari Markhandey v. Smt. Dropati Markhandey

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

Dhanush Dhivar Vs Gangaram

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kishan Lal Yadav

Branch Manager. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kisu (Kishu) Bai Patel

Branch Manager Vs Jitu Sahu

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Sandilya

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma