Local Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Urmila Kumhar

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶3

2026:CGHC:11669

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1170 of 2018

¶7

1 - Local Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Address - Near Parmanand Bhawan Rajendra Park, G.E. Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Company Of Vehicle Mini Bus No. C.G. 08, B. 5069), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Urmila Kumhar W/o Late Laxman Kumhar, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Raunda, Thana And Tehsil - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Ku. Ramkumari D/o Late Laxman Kumhar, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Raunda, Thana And Tehsil - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Smt. Janakbai Kumhar W/o Late Banshilal Kumhar, Aged About 74 Years R/o Village And Post Raunda, Thana And Tehsil - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Bhupendra Pal S/o Dhanehs Pal, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Joratarai, Thana And Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Mini Bus No. C.G. 08, B. 5069) (Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Vishnu Kumar Lodhi S/o Siparram Lodhi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Puraina, Post - Mohara, Tehsil Dongargahr, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Mini Bus No. C.G. 08, B. 5069) (Owner), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Appellant	: Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocate holding brief
	on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents	: None

¶18

2

¶19

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

11/03/2026

¶22

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 05.02.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 166/2015, in the matter of Smt. Urmila & Others vs. Bhupendra Pal & Others, by the learned 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.).

¶23

The claim arises out of a motor accident alleged to have occurred on 15.09.2015 at about 4:15 PM, wherein the deceased Manoj Kumar was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07/AQ/7768 with Ramkumar Chandel as pillion rider. It is alleged that while they were proceeding on the Dhamcha– Sauragadh main road near the farm of Govaram Paul at Parskosh Khar, another vehicle coming from the opposite direction dashed against the said motorcycle, as a result of which Manoj Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Aggrieved by the findings and the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on

¶25

3

¶26

record and the settled principles of law governing motor accident claims. It is contended that the vehicle in question, i.e., mini bus bearing registration No. CG-08-B/5069, was not involved in the alleged accident; however, the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the said vehicle was the offending vehicle and has illegally fastened liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that a perusal of the documentary evidence clearly shows that the number of the alleged offending vehicle was not mentioned in any of the contemporaneous documents prepared immediately after the accident, including the FIR (Ex. P-2) dated 15.09.2015, Merg Intimation (Ex. P-3), Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. P-4), Post-mortem Report (Ex. P-6) and Crime Detail Form (Ex. P-7), though the pillion rider Ramkumar Chandel was present at the spot and was aware of the incident. It is further submitted that despite the absence of any statement of an eyewitness identifying the vehicle involved in the accident, the police proceeded to seize the insured mini bus No. CG-08-B/5069 vide seizure memo dated 16.09.2015 (Ex. P-8), which clearly indicates arbitrary and mala fide action on the part of the investigating agency. Learned counsel further submits that the statements of the alleged witnesses Ramkumar Chandel and Santram were recorded only on 24.09.2015, i.e., about nine days after the accident, whereas the vehicle had already been seized earlier on 16.09.2015 without any prior identification. It is also pointed out that witness Santram, examined before the Tribunal,

¶27

4

¶28

admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accident, and similarly Ramkumar Chandel also admitted that he had not actually witnessed the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, in the absence of any reliable eyewitness account establishing the involvement of the insured vehicle, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the said mini bus responsible for the accident is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that even the order sheet dated 10.01.2018 recorded by the Tribunal itself indicates that the involvement of the said mini bus in the accident was doubtful; however, while passing the final award the Tribunal ignored this material aspect and wrongly relied upon the criminal record to hold the vehicle liable. It is therefore argued that the liability fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company is not in accordance with law and the appellant deserves to be exonerated from payment of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has also committed an error in determining the dependency of the claimants by including the maternal grandmother (Nani) of the deceased as a dependent and calculating compensation on that basis, even though such claimant cannot ordinarily be treated as a dependent for the purpose of determining loss of dependency. It is thus submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the appellant Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated from the liability imposed upon it. In the alternative, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation by

¶29

5

¶30

wrongly applying future prospects, by applying deduction of onethird towards personal expenses despite the fact that the deceased was unmarried, and by ignoring the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who himself was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the appellant Insurance Company be absolved from liability.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the record of the case as well as the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶32

From perusal of the record, it appears that the principal contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company is with regard to the involvement of the insured vehicle, i.e., mini bus bearing registration No. CG-08-B/5069, in the accident in question. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to demonstrate that the number of the alleged offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR, merg intimation, naksha panchayatnama, post-mortem report and other contemporaneous documents prepared soon after the accident and, therefore, the involvement of the insured vehicle is doubtful. However, upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is noticed that the appellant–Insurance Company has not adduced any independent evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. Mere pointing out certain discrepancies in the documents or the investigation

¶33

6

¶34

would not by itself be sufficient to dislodge the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal when there is otherwise material on record on the basis of which the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion regarding involvement of the vehicle. The Insurance Company had the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal but no such evidence has been brought on record to establish that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated or was not involved in the incident. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the material placed before it, has recorded a finding regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle, and this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the said finding.

¶35

However, so far as the issue relating to determination of dependency is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the maternal grandmother of the deceased cannot ordinarily be treated as a dependent for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency deserves consideration. The Tribunal while determining the compensation appears to have taken into account the dependency of the maternal grandmother of the deceased and has assessed the loss of dependency accordingly.

¶36

Though no one appears on behalf of claimants neither any crossobjection has been filed, however, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surekha W/o

¶37

7

¶38

Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav

¶39

and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶40

“2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants.

¶41

By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.”

¶42

On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶43

In light of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court of the opinion that in order to do complete justice the awarded amount in each of the claim case is required to be enhanced.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the aspect requires modification to the extent that the dependency cannot be calculated on the basis of the maternal grandmother being treated

¶45

8

¶46

as a dependent claimant. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified to that limited extent.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding involvement of the offending vehicle and the liability of the Insurance Company is affirmed and does not call for any interference. However, the award is modified to the extent indicated hereunder in relation to determination of dependency.

¶48

Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total

¶49

compensation of Rs. 8,12,400 /- in the following manner:-

¶50

Income 4,500 p.m.
Annual Income 4,500 x 12 40% future Prospective (21,600/-) Personal Expenses(1/2) (37,800/-) Net Income Multiplier (x18) Loss of Income	Rs. 54,000/- +21,600/- Rs. 75,600/- (-37,800) Rs. 37,800/-	Rs. 6,80,400/-
Towards consortiumalong with with increase of 10% in every three years(40,000X2+10%+10%).		Rs. 96,000/-
Funeral Expenses (along with increase of 10% in every three years.)		Rs. 18,000/-
Loss of Estate(along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears)		Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 8,12,400/-

¶51

Accordingly, the total compensation is reduced to Rs. 8,12,400/-

¶52

from Rs. 9,37,200/-. Thus, there is a reduction of Rs. 1,24,800/ -.

¶53

9

¶54

As a result, the the appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact.

¶55

Certified Copy as per rules.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶58

Shayna

Local Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Urmila Kumhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Local Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Urmila Kumhar

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

Somaru Ram Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S.K. Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamla Yadav

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Umashankar

Mohd. Sadik Momin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vidya Gonnade (Dekate) Vs Union of India