Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Geeta Bai Kashyap

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.07 11:37:43 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:6529

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1436 of 2025

¶7

*** -** Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore Madhya Pradesh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Geeta Bai Kashyap W/o Shri Radhelal Kashyap, Aged About 57 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S.Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Radhelal Kashyap S/o Late Shri Heeralal Kashyap, Aged About 79 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S.Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Kumari Purvi Kashyap D/o Shri Radhelal Kashyap, Aged About 23 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S.Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Churan Harishankar Kashyap S/o Radhelal Kashyap, Aged About 36 Years R/o Janjgir, Ward No. 19, Gija Bhawan, Indira Nagar, Janjgir Tehsil And P.S. Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents
For Appellant / Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 / Claimants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶16

05/02/2026

¶17

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the quantum part of the award passed by II^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 760/2023 dated 24.04.2025, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has granted

¶18

2

¶19

compensation to the tune of Rs.28,67,481/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants on account of death of Lav Kashyap.

¶20

The claimants are parents and sister of deceased- Lav Kashyap. They filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 21 years. They further pleaded that on 04.12.2022 while deceased was returning to Shivrinarayan from Kasdol in a car bearing registration No. CG-11/ AH-4730 which was being driven by its driver (respondent No. 4 herein). The driver of said car drove it rashly and negligently and lost control, resultantly car dashed against stationary truck and in said accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and during course of treatment, died on 13.12.2022. They pleaded that deceased was a student of Seventh Semester of B.Tech. and earning Rs.18,000/- per month.

¶21

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants pleaded the income of the deceased Rs.18,000/- per month, but no evidence was led before the learned Claims Tribunal. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- per month which is at higher side. He would further submit that on conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted higher compensation.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants would oppose. He would submit that the deceased was an Engineering Student, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed his income Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶23

3

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶25

The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation as under:-

¶26

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1.	Total loss of dependency	Rs.22,48,000/-
2.	Filial Consortium to Claimants No. 1 and 3 as 48,000/- each	Rs.1,44,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs.18,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	Rs.18,000/-
5.	Prior to death of medical expenses	Rs.4,39,481/-
	Total :	Rs.28,67,481/-

¶27

Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.28,67,481/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants and fastened liability with the Insurance Company.

¶28

Admittedly, the deceased was a student of Seventh Semester of B.Tech. He was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by providing tuition to the students. The claimants pleaded the income of the deceased in claim petition and also adduced oral evidence, therefore, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶29

Mr. Sourabh Sharma would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix treating the deceased a skilled labourer.

¶30

Admittedly, the deceased was a student of Engineering College. He had a bright future ahead. It is pleaded that he was giving tuition to the students. AW-1 Geeta Bai Kashyap has categorically stated that the

¶31

4

¶32

deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by providing tuition to the students and the learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶33

In the matter of Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 18728-29 of 2018) , wherein the deceased was a teacher in a Private School and his income was assessed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per minimum wages applicable to the skilled workers during April 2014 in the State of Haryana.

¶34

In the present case, the deceased was a Engineering Student and he was providing tuition to the students also. The deceased would have maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family. He had a bright future ahead. The Tribunals and Courts should apply minimum wages matrix applicable in the particular State at particular period, if there is no evidence with regard to income of the deceased. In the present case, the claimants specifically pleaded that the deceased was a Engineering Student and earning Rs.18,000/- per month by providing tuition to the students. The Insurance Company could not prove contrary, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- per month. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and award dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶35

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

vatti

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Geeta Bai Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, v. Smt. Geeta Bai Kashyap

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

Mangilal, Vs Kapil and Others

Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Yaad Bai

Ramdhari (Now Dead) through LRs Vs Dayavati Devi (Now Dead) through Lrs

Amar Singh Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Earlier Magma H.D.I.) Vs Laxmin Bai Chouhan

Laxmibai Sahu Vs Goutam Kumar Shrivas