Dismissed¶¶36

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi v. Shivshankar Joshi

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2026MAC/443/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: MAC appeal; Section 173 MV Act 1988; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; death of motorcycle rider in collision with cow on road (05.09.2019); claim dismissed; no premium charged covering driver–owner personal accident risk; Oriental Insurance Co.; policy Ex.D1; Nigamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 relied upon; Claims Tribunal Durg award dated 09.11.2022 affirmed; appeal dismissed; no compensation awarded; claimant family appellants; owner Shivshankar Joshi; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput.

What did the court decide?

As no premium had been charged covering the risk of the driver–owner, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted no compensation in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Nigamma case, and this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/award. ¶¶35

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.23 18:52:32 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16211

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 443 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Parma Bai Joshi W/o Late Tiharuram Joshi Aged About 60 Years Presently Residing At Quarter No. 25/b, Road Number 32, Sector-10, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Mahesh Kumar Joshi S/o Late Tiharuram Joshi Aged About 42 Years Presently Residing At Quarter No. 25/b, Road Number 32, Sector-10, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Smt. Uttara Bai W/o Rajulal Deshlahre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chandkhuri, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Smt. Dashodiya Bai Bharti W/o Rajkumar Bharti Aged About 38 Years R/o Behind Laxmi Market, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Smt. Maheshwari Jangde W/o Ramavtar Jangde Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Verma Borewells, Village Utai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Shivshankar Joshi S/o Ratan Joshi Aged About 42 Years R/o Thakurtola, Police Station And Post Somni, Tahsil And District

Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh

2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Parmanand Bhawan, Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellants	: Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: None despite service

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

08/04/2026

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 9.11.2022 passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.241 of 2021.

¶25

2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case of the appellants/claimants. The claim application was preferred on account of death of Tiharu Ram Joshi in an accident that occurred on 5.9.2019 due to a cow coming in between on the road with which he collided. He died during treatment. Total compensation of Rs.10,10,000 was claimed.

¶26

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.2/insurance company also pleaded that the accident occurred due to collision with a cow. No documentary evidence was led by the appellants/claimants to

¶27

¶28

establish the profession and income of the deceased. No premium was paid to cover the risk of driver-owner of the motorcycle in question for their accidental damage or death.

¶29

4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them dismissed the claim case.

¶30

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim case. The deceased did not die on account of his negligence, rather a cow came in between on the road with which he collided and died during treatment. At least personal accident coverage amount should have been paid.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nigamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2009 ACJ 2020 as no personal accident coverage was charged covering the risk of the driver – owner, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case.

¶32

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care.

¶33

8. The insurance company examined its witness Ahilya Manjhi and proved the insurance policy Ex.D1. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim case held that the insurance company has not charged any premium covering the risk of driver – owner and thus held that as no premium is charged, no compensation can

¶34

¶35

be granted in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nigamma case (supra) . This Court does not 昀椀nd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/award.

¶36

9. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned award is a昀케rmed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE

¶39

Gopal

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi v. Shivshankar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi v. Shivshankar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fuleshwari Bai Vs Kishunram Mandawi

Ramsingh Kashyap Vs Dullu Ram Yadav

Mongrabai Yadav Vs Shyam Sundar Sharma

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik Vs Bank of India

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Munkunadas Vs Manoj Kumar