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

¶1

Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISHTIWARIDate: TIWARI 2026.04.27 11:13:43 +0530

¶2

2026:CGHC:16471

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

M.A.(C) No. 1377 of 2024

¶6

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.),.. (Insurer)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Satyendra Singh, S/o Late Vikramaditya Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.),... (Claimants)

¶10

2 - Smt. Hemlata Singh, W/o Satyendra Singh, aged about 49 years, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Kanaklata Singh, D/o Satyendra Narayan Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Anju Singh, W/o Late Harendra Narayan Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Aditya Vikram Singh, S/o Late Harendra Narayan Singh, aged about 15 years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Anju Singh, W/o Late Harendra Narayan Singh, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Yogendra Vikram Singh, S/o Late Harendra Narayan Singh, aged about 13 years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Anju Singh, W/o Late Harendra Narayan Singh, R/o Shikshak Nagar Amdi (M), Tehsil And District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Saleem Khan, S/o Sharif Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Ward No. 01, Behind Police Station Gariyaband, P.S. Teshil And District Gariyaband (C.G.),...(Driver Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration Number C.G. 23 - K - 4406)

¶16

8 - Than Sigh Thakur, S/o Home Singh, aged about 33 years, R/o Dikesh Motors Gariyaband, Tehsil P.S And District Gariyaband (C.G.),...(Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration Number C.G. 23 - K - 4406)

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

__________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : Shri S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 : None despite service.

¶19

-2-

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

09/04/2026

¶23

1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / Insurance Company assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 01.04.2024 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 26/2022.

¶24

2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.41,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,38,000/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6/Claimants on account of death of deceased Abhay Pratap Singh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in an accident that occurred on 24.07.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle motorcycle by respondent No.7. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8.

¶25

3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under sections 166 of the MV Act, on the the date of accident i.e. 24.07.2021 at about 08:30PM (night) deceased – Abhay Pratap Singh was going to his friend at Rawanbhata Gariyaband by riding Scooty, the driver of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-23-K-4406 by rash and negligent driving dashed the Scooty of the deceased by respondent No. 7. As a result of which deceased sustained severe injuries and was admitted to P.H.C, Gariyaband but looking tot he injuries he was referred to Private Hospital, Raipur for treatment where he died during treatment at D.K.S. hospital. The report was lodged at Police Station – Gariyaband, where the offences punishable under sections 304-A of the IPC was registered in Crime No. 280/2021 was registered.

¶26

-3-

¶27

4. As per further pleadings, the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 25 years, performing the work of Security Guard and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was a bread winner of his family.

¶28

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement denied the averments of the claim application. The amount of compensation is claimed exaggerated and fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶29

6. The claim application was resisted by respondent nos. 7 and 8 on various ground including appellant / insurance Company taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving license. There is a violation of terms and condition of the insurance Policy. Hence, Insurance Company may be exonerated.

¶30

7. On the basis of above broad pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6/Claimants. Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.10,000/- added 40% for future prospect and awarded total compensation and deducted 1//4^th the amount of the personal expenses of the deceased and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶31

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the deceased was a bachelor, thus instead of 1/4^th deduction, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 compensation. Thus, the compensation may be reduced suitably.

¶32

9. Learned counsels for respondents submits that the just compensation has been awarded as there are six dependents upon the income of the deceased Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th amount for the personal expenses of the deceased.

¶33

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

¶34

-4-

¶35

11. The deceased was a Bachelor half amount should be deducted for personal expenses from the income of the deceased. On perusal of the record it appears that the appellant No.1 is the father aged about 60 years; appellant No.2 is the mother aged about about 49 years; appellant No.3 is the unmarried sister aged about 23 years; appellant No.4 is the widow aunt aged about 35 years and her two sons aged about 13 and 15 years. Kanaklata Singh (AW-1) sister of the deceased deposed in the statement before the Court that the deceased was his brother who died in an accident who was working as Security Guard earning Rs.10000 – 11000/- per month. She has stated that she is married, however, she has been deserted. From the statement of this witness, it does not appear then any question was asked by the Counsel for the insurance Company with regard to dependency of the remaining appellants on the income of the deceased rather it appears that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Appellant No.3 is the sister and according to her she is married but however she is deserted and living with her parents. Appellant No.4 is the widow aunt of the deceased and appellant Nos. 5 and 6 are her sons. From the record it appears that the appellant No.1 father is aged about 60 years and the appellant nos. 4 to 6 were residing along-with the deceased. It can safely be assumed that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting one fourth income for the personal expenses of the deceased. In the opinion of the Court, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶36

12. All the pending applications are disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- d/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶39

-/ Ashish

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik Vs Bank of India

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode