Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16760

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1257 of 2024

¶6

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through - Officer-In-Charge, Simran Tower, Pandri Road, In-Front Of L.I.C. Building, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), (Insurer Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04 - H.T. - 5703)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini W/o Late Devendra Kumar Verma Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village - Mohra, Police Station - Suhela, District Balodabazar (C.G.), ...(Claimants)

¶10

2 - Khiyansh Verma S/o Late Devendra Kumar Verma Aged About 2 Years Minor, Hence Representing Through Him Mother Res. No. 1 Rajkumari Verma, Resident Of Village - Mohra, Police Station - Suhela, District Balodabazar (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Anusuiya Verma W/o Siyaram Verma Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village - Mohra, Police Station - Suhela, District Balodabazar (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Siyaram Verma S/o Panchram Verma Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village - Mohra, Police Station - Suhela, District Balodabazar (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Ramesh Kumar Yadav Father Bhau Kumar Yadav Aged About 44 Years Resident - Village - Kathia No. 1, Police Station - Khatora, District Raipur (C.G.), (Father And Legal Heir Of Rakesh Yadav, Driver Of Vehice Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04 - H.T. - 5703)

¶14

6 - Parvati Bai Yadav W/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 40 Years Resident - Village Kathia No. 01, Police Station - Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.), (Mother And Legal Heir Of Rakesh Yadav, Driver Of Vehice Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04 - H.T. - 5703)

¶15

... Respondent

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, along with Ms. Rashi Chhabra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : None

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board

¶19

10/04/2026

¶20

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶21

2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 141 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that a crossobjection has been filed, however, he does not wish to press the same.

¶23

4. Accordingly, the cross-objection preferred by respondents No. 1 to 4 stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶24

5. Also, heard on admission.

¶25

6. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 557/2022. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,81,480/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of the death of deceased Devendra Kumar Verma in an accident that occurred on 29.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-HT-5703 by respondent No.

¶26

3

¶27

5 (driver), owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶28

7. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CU-3044 and was proceeding from village Chhachanpari to village Mohra along with pillion rider Manohar Yadav. At about 08:30 PM, the son of respondents No. 5 and 6, driving the offending motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in the accident in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. In connection with the incident, Crime No. 139/2022 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. It was further pleaded that the deceased, aged about 31 years, was working as a mason earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimants, being the wife, child, and parents of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 36,24,200/-.

¶29

8. Respondents No. 5 and 6 remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal.

¶30

9. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application, alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and further raising a plea of contributory negligence.

¶31

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of evidence, decided the case in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,81,480/-.

¶32

4

¶33

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error of law and fact in holding that the son of respondents No. 5 and 6 was solely negligent in causing the accident. It is further submitted that Issue No. 3 regarding contributory negligence has not been decided in accordance with law. According to him, since there was a head-on collision between the two motorcycles, both drivers ought to have been held responsible, and the compensation should be reduced by treating the case as one of contributory negligence.

¶34

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants submits that the appellant failed to prove the plea of contributory negligence by leading cogent evidence. Issue No. 3 has been rightly decided by the learned Tribunal on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and does not warrant interference. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record.

¶36

14. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. However, the witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, namely Prashant Bhomiya, is an officer of the company and not an eyewitness to the incident. The record further reveals that no independent witness has been examined to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the claimants and relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

¶37

5

¶38

2015 SCC OnLine SC 433, as well as the decision in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. Binda Bai Nishad & Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1903, has rightly decided the issue against the Insurance Company.

¶39

15. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence and has recorded a categorical finding negating the plea of contributory negligence. In the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE

¶42

Jyoti,

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra Singh

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya