Dismissed¶¶24

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Lal Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2026MAC/174/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act 1988; insurer (HDFC General Insurance) versus claimant, driver and owner of vehicle Cg-10-R-0751; sole ground: claimant, a Police Department employee, allegedly already reimbursed his medical/treatment expenses by his department; defence failed for want of any oral or documentary evidence; insurer free to obtain information from concerned department but did not; compensation of Rs.8,69,714/- upheld; no perversity or illegality in Tribunal's findings; appeal dismissed, parties to bear own costs; Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal; decided 10.04.2026; NAFR; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:16618.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no interference in the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal; parties left to bear their own costs. ¶¶24

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kishan Lal… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with no interference in the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal; parties left to bear their own costs.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimant, employed with the Police Department and alleged by the insurer to have already obtained reimbursement of his medical expenses, remained entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,69,714/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, such that the impugned award was liable to be set aside.

¶¶18

Court's answer

Since no oral or documentary evidence was led by the insurance company to demonstrate that the claimant, a Police Department employee, had already obtained reimbursement of the treatment expenses, and the insurer did not choose to obtain such information from the concerned department, in the absence of any evidence the learned Claims Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of Rs.8,69,714/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the claimant and fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company; the findings are correct findings of fact based on the evidence available on record.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Single Bench, Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) in MAC No. 174 of 2020, decided 10.04.2026: Appeal by HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 173, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Claims Tribunal's award dt. 03.09.2019 fastening on it liability to pay Rs.8,69,714/- compensation to claimant Kishan Lal Yadav for injuries sustained in a road accident. The insurer contended that the claimant, being a Police Department employee, had already obtained reimbursement of the amount and hence was not entitled to compensation. Held, dismissing the appeal: no oral or documentary evidence whatsoever was led by the insurance company to substantiate the reimbursement plea, nor did it avail of its freedom to obtain the information from the concerned department; in the absence of any evidence the Claims Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation, and its findings suffer from no perversity or illegality, being correct findings of fact based on the record. Parties left to bear their own costs.

2026:CGHC:16618

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 174 of 2020

¶6

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Second Floor, Pujari Complex, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. At Present Devendra Nagar, Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-10-R-0751), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Kishan Lal Yadav S/o Dayaram Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Police Line Wireless Colony, Qtr. No. G4/16, Thana Tikrapara, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Dashrath Nayak S/o Shri Lalu Nayak Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Haisal Piska Mod, Thana Sukdev Nagar, Ranchi Tahsil Ranchi District Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-10-R-0751)., District : Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

3 - Gurmit Singh S/o Shri Avtar Singh R/o Shri Surajdev Chaudhary Transport Nagar, Jarhabhatha, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-10-R-0751)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board)

¶14

10.04.2026

¶15

1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is calling in question legality, validity and correctness of impugned award

¶16

¶17

dt. 03.09.2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,69,714/- upon them.

¶18

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in award compensation to the tune of Rs.8,69,714/- to the claimant, as the claimant being the person employed with Police Department has already obtained reimbursement of the said amount. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶19

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

¶20

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶21

5. In the case at hand, after perusal of the record, it is quite clear that though the appellant- Insurance Company took plea that the claimant being a person employed with the Police Department has already obtained reimbursement of the amount, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation, but no evidence has been led to substantiate the said fact. Neither any oral nor documentary evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company to demonstrate the fact that the claimant being the person employed with the Police Department has already obtained reimbursement of the amount incurred by him during his treatment. Even, the insurance company was free to obtain the said information from the concerned department, but they have not chose to

¶22

¶23

do so, therefore, in absence of any evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,69,714/to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned claims tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimant and fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company, as the same is correct findings of facts based on evidence available on record.

¶24

6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference of this Court and, therefor, the same is hereby dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶25

sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶26

s@if

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Lal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Lal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biselal Yadav Vs Satpal Singh

The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name Assurance) Vs Smt Rampyari

New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Sinha

Sumitra Vs Union of India

Pranav Dhali Vs Arvind Yadav

Dilip Singh Thakur Vs Ici Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited