Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sushma Gilhare

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1437 of 2024

¶6

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

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Smt. Sushma Gilhare W/o Late Shailesh Gilhare Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Bhathapara Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.). (Claimant)

¶9

2 - Ku. Supriya Gilhare D/o Late Shailesh Gilhare Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Bhathapara Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant).

¶10

3 - Ku. Suman Gilhare D/o Late Shailesh Gilhare Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Bhathapara Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant).

¶11

4 - Ku. Smita Gilhare D/o Late Shailesh Gilhare Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushma Gilhare R/o Ward No. 13, Bhathapara Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶12

5 - Shreya Gilhare D/o Late Shailesh Gilhare Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushma Gilhare R/o Ward No. 13, Bhathapara Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶13

6 - Manrakhan Sahu S/o Chatru Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Joba, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Ml 2107)

¶14

7 - Kuber Dewangan S/o Vinod Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Clubpara, Ward No. 26 Mahasamund Tehsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Ml 2107)

¶15

2

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellant/Insurance	:Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate, holding the
Company	brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) No.1 to 5	:Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate
/Claimants

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

06/02/2026

¶21

The appellant/insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 83 of 2023 dated 04.05.2024, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,35,993/along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Shailesh Gilhare

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2023, at about 10.30 am, while the deceased was going to his workplace i.e. School, on a Scooty bearing registration No. CG-06-GP-0170, at the same time, the driver of the offending motorbike bearing registration No. CG-04-ML-2107, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the Scooty from back, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment died.

¶23

The claimants, who are the widow and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 55 years earning Rs. 69,316/- per month as a Government Teacher (LB).

¶24

The insurance company filed its reply and denied the claim averments. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter the impugned award was passed.

¶25

3

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that learned Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 11 instead of the multiplier of 9 as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 55 years, 3 months and 8 days. She would further submit that there is an inordinate delay of 67 days in lodging the FIR. She would also submit that the alleged eye-witness Santosh Namdev, has not supported the version put forth by the claimants; thus, she would submit that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the evidence available on record and hence the the appeal may be allowed and cross-objection filed by the claimants deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while deducting 10% income tax from the annual income of the deceased. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation for future prospects on dependency and also failed to grant loss of consortium to the children, therefore, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

It is settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition.

¶30

In the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. It is further held that knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. It is also held that in cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny.

¶31

4

¶32

With regard to the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased according to the salary slips placed on record by the claimants. As per record, the date of birth of the deceased was 28.10.1967 and thus, on the date of accident i.e., 06.02.2023, his age was 55 years, 3 months and 8 days, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 11.

¶33

11.With regard to deduction of income tax, the deceased was earning annual income of more than Rs. 8 lakhs, therefore, the Tribunal rightly deducted 10% of the total income as per the prevailing Income Tax slab.

¶34

12.It appears that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to claimant Nos. 2 to 5. In my opinion, claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled for filial consortium being the children of the deceased; thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and the same is revisited hereinbelow: –

¶35

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 44,000/- (for Claimant No. 1)	Rs. 44,000x 4 Appellant (Claimants No.2 to 5)
	TOTAL		Rs. 1,76,000/-

¶36

The insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- to the claimants No.2 to 5 in addition to the amount already awarded within a period of 60 days, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶37

5

¶38

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the claimants is allowed in part .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶41

Nadim

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sushma Gilhare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sushma Gilhare

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

Ashok Sahu Vs Himanshu Sharma

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonia Manikpuri Vs Mohd. Shahid

Ratna Bai Vs Gajanand (Died) through Lrs Narayan Patel

Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar Vs Mahadev Ajgalle

Siyaram Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh