Dismissed¶¶34

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited v. Minor Gourav Kant Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026MAC/438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 438 of 2019, High Court of Chhattisgarh (Single Bench, Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) — insurer's appeal under S.173 MV Act against Claims Tribunal award of Rs.21,40,712/- with 50% contributory negligence deduction; night-time (01:30-02:00 AM, 07.06.2011) accident involving truck parked without parking lights; no-evidence permit defence rejected; Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG (2018) 7 SCC 558 distinguished; appeal dismissed, no cost; accident at Korba, Chhattisgarh.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant-insurance company; the Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.21,40,712/- against it stands, appeal dismissed with no cost. ¶¶34

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-insurance company; the Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.21,40,712/- against it stands, appeal dismissed with no cost.

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the driver of the offending truck was solely negligent in parking the vehicle without proper indicator, or whether the deceased himself was fully negligent (no offence registered against the driver), so as to exonerate the insurance company. +2 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The Claims Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in parking the vehicle, which caused the accident: PW-2 Bhagvat Prasad Rathore stated the driver did not switch on the parking light, the owner of the offending vehicle was not examined, the insurer led no evidence that the driver was solely negligent, and a witness who reached the spot 2-3 minutes after the incident cannot be held to be an eyewitness. The first argument of the appellant is rejected.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the snacks hotel which the deceased used to run in his lifetime is still being run by his elder brother (who is not a claimant) cannot be a ground for refusing or reducing compensation to the claimants; the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation. The second argument is rejected.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The insurance company led no evidence to demonstrate that the owner of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective permit to ply it on the date of the accident; in absence of such evidence, the permit ground is rejected.ratio¶¶33
The judgment of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) relied upon by the appellant is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case and cannot be made applicable.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — S.173 appeal by insurer (Bajaj Allianz) against Claims Tribunal award dated 29.10.2018 fastening liability of Rs.21,40,712/- on it after 50% deduction towards contributory negligence of the deceased, who died when the vehicle he was travelling in dashed against a truck parked at night (about 1:30 to 2:00 AM on 07.06.2011). Held: (i) PW-2 Bhagvat Prasad Rathore stated that while parking the offending vehicle the driver did not switch on the parking light; the insurer led no evidence that the driver was solely negligent, the vehicle owner was not examined, and a witness reaching the spot 2-3 minutes later is not an eyewitness — finding of negligence upheld; (ii) compensation not on the higher side merely because the deceased's snacks hotel is still run by his elder brother, who is not a claimant; (iii) insurer led no evidence to prove absence of a valid and effective permit for the truck — permit defence rejected; (iv) Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, relied on by the insurer, clearly distinguishable on the facts. Appeal dismissed with no cost. (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

¶1

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

NAFR

¶5

MAC No. 438 of 2019

¶6

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. 102 Indira Commercial Complex Behind Natraj Hotel T.P. Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh Through Legal Officer, Bjaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh..............(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Minor Gourav Kant Sahu S/o Late Sashikant Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor They Are Through Their Guardian (Grandfather) Murit Ram Sahu, R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Minor Garv Kant Sahu S/o Late Sashikant Sahu 2 1/2 Years R/o Minor They Are Through Their Guardian (Grandfather) Murit Ram Sahu, R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Murit Ram Sahu S/o Late Chamru Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Lata Sahu W/o Muritram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Ravikant Sahu S/o Murit Ram Sahu R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of Car), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh............(Insurer Of Car), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

7 - Lakhan Das Manikpuri S/o Sanand Das Manikpuri R/o Village Haranmundi Pali District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of Truck), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

¶15

8 - Ganpat Ram Sinha R/o Through Devendra Singh Plot No. 191 T.P. Nagar Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of Truck), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶17

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

(Order on Board)

¶19

16.04.2026

¶20

1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) the appellant- Insurance Company is questioning award dated 29.10.2018, whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, but fastened the liability to pay compensation of Rs.21,40,712/- to the claimants upon the appellant- Insurance Company.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that: (i) there is no evidence available on record to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent in parking the vehicle without having proper indicator, as no offence has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased himself was fully negligent in the accident in question; (ii) since the deceased used to run a snacks hotel, which is still running by his elder brother, the compensation awarded is on the higher side and (iii) owner of the offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident. Learned counsel would rely upon Amrit Paul Singh and

¶22

¶23

another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others1 in support of his submissions. As such, for the aforesaid reasons, the insurance company is liable to be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶24

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.06 supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

¶25

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

¶26

5. The first argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle has parked the vehicle side of the road and there is no evidence that it was parked without giving proper indicator/showing the parking of the vehicle, as the incident occurred in night at about 1:30 to 2:00 AM on 07.06.2011. However, in this regard Witness No.02- Bhagvat Prasad Rathore has stated that while parking the offending vehicle the driver did not switch on the parking light and, therefore, accident occurred, as due to which, the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling dashed with the offending vehicle. Though in cross-examination, in Para-6, it is stated that he reached immediately after 2-3 minutes, but merely because he reached after 2-3 minutes of the incident, it could not be held that he is the eye-witness of the incident. Further, the owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined and the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to

¶27

1 (2018) 7 SCC 558

¶28

¶29

prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent in parking the vehicle without having proper indicator in switch on condition, as the accident occurred in midnight. As such, for the aforesaid reasons the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in parking the vehicle, due to which, accident in question took place. Thus, the first argument raised on behalf of the appellant is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶30

6. The second argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the deceased used to run a snacks hotel, which is still being running by his elder brother, therefore, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. However, brother of the deceased is not a claimant in the present matter, the claimants are wife (now dead), two sons, mother and father of the deceased. Merely because the hotel which the deceased used to run during his lifetime is still being run by his elder brother, it cannot be a ground for not granting compensation to the claimants or reducing the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the claimants under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, this argument raised on behalf of the appellant is also liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶31

7. The last argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the owner of the offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that the insurance company did not lead any evidence to demonstrate the said fact that the owner of the

¶32

¶33

offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident and, in absence of which, the said ground is also liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶34

8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference of this Court in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. So far as the judgment of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) relied by the appellant is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable under the facts of the preset case and cannot be made applicable. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost.

¶35

sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶36

s@if

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited v. Minor Gourav Kant Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited v. Minor Gourav Kant Sahu

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Sandilya

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Agam Nirmalkar Vs Munnalal Patel

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunwar Singh Keshar

Smt. Balwanti Tirkey Vs Satish Kashyap