Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rama Kadam

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.15 10:46:56 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:2120

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 553 of 2020

¶7

Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

Rama Kadam W/o Late Madhukar Rao Kadam Aged About 50 Years R/o Kurudand, Ward No. 6, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Ankit Kadam S/o Late Madhukar Rao Kadam Aged About 18 Years (Now Major), R/o Kurudand, Ward No. 6, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Rohit Kumar S/o Kamlesh Kumar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dheka, Near Paper Mill Mahmad, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Prayash Kumar Sonkar S/o Dayaram Sonkar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mahmad Ward No. 07, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 and 2	: None, though served
For Respondents	: Mr. Shashwat Yechuri, Advocate on behalf
No. 3 and 4	of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

14.1.2026

¶20

1) By way of this appeal, Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 389/2018 dated 24.12.2019 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 44,52,808/- on account of death of Madhukar Rao Kadam.

¶21

2) Facts of the present case are that on 30.11.2017, Madhukar Rao Kadam was driving a Honda Activa bearing registration No. CG10-NA-0207 and his wife was the pillion rider. At about 9:00 am, the offending vehicle – motorcycle bearing registration No. CG10-AH-8435, dashed the Honda Activa. In the accident, Madhukar Rao Kadam sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment on 1.12.2017.

¶22

3) Claimants, who are widow and minor son of the deceased filed the claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 82,93,622/- and pleaded that age of the deceased was 59 years and he was earning Rs. 55,634/- per month working as Medical Assistant in the Health Department. Driver and owner of offending vehicle filed reply and denied averments made in claim application. Insurance Company filed reply and took a specific plea that there was inordinate delay of three months in registration

¶23

3

¶24

of FIR and motorcycle was not involved in the accident at all, instead the Honda Activa was dashed by an unknown heavy goods vehicle. It was also pleaded that driver of motorcycle did not have valid driving license on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed.

¶25

4) Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and there was delay of three months in lodging of the FIR. He further submits that no explanation was offered by the claimants with regard to the delay caused in lodging of FIR. He contends that in the merg intimation registered on 1.12.2017, there is no whisper with regard to involvement of motorcycle in the accident and in claim petition the claimants concocted a story that Honda Activa was dashed by the motorcycle. He further contends that learned Tribunal has granted compensation on the higher side. He prays to set aside the award impugned.

¶26

5) On the other hand, Mr. Shashwat Yechuri, counsel appearing for the driver and owner of offending vehicle would oppose. He submits that learned Tribunal has considered all the issues raised by the Insurance Company and thereafter granted just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

4

¶28

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

7) A careful perusal of the record would show that statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Smt. Rama Kadam (AW/1) was recorded on 26.3.2018 wherein she categorically stated that accident occurred on 30.11.2017 when the offending vehicle – motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-AH-8435, dashed the Honda Activa. In evidence, she made similar contention and in crossexamination, she remained firm. Fekan Yadav (AW/2) also supported the case of claimants. Bharat Ram Sahu (AW/3), who was an accountant in Health Department proved the income of the deceased.

¶30

8) Insurance Company examined Lalit Tahilyani who was an investigator. This witness exhibited his investigation report (EX.D/1) and stated that deceased was dashed by an unknown heavy goods vehicle. Learned Tribunal discarded the evidence and investigation report led by the Insurance Company as same was contrary to the record of the criminal case.

¶31

9) With regard to delay in registration of FIR, deceased, namely, Madhukar Rao Kadam expired on 1.12.2017 and merg intimation was registered on the same date wherein it was categorically stated that the death occurred due to injuries sustained in accident. After merg inquiry, police registered FIR on 26.3.2018 against the rider of the motorcycle, namely, Rohit Kumar ; seized

¶32

5

¶33

the motorcycle on the same date and after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Thus there was no delay on the part of claimants in registration of FIR.

¶34

10) Evidently, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle – motorcycle did not make any complaint before the superior police authorities against registration of FIR, seizure of vehicle and filing of charge-sheet against them. Insurance Company also did not make any complaint with regard to implantation of vehicle.

¶35

11) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others¹ held that point of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ranjeet and Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10351 of 2019 , has held that “It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the

¶36

AIR 2018 SC 1900

¶37

6

¶38

death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver”.

¶39

12) Furthermore, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased purely on the basis of salary slip exhibited by the claimants and has awarded appropriate amounts under conventional heads strictly in accordance with law.

¶40

13) In view of the discussion made herein-above, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶43

A j i n k y a

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Rama Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Rama Kadam

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

Deleted (Ram Pyare Sahu) Vs Deleted (Bishambhar Prasad)

Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tileshwar Prasad

Mohd. Ikhlaque Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rekha Soni Vs Rameshwar Singh

Smt. Mariyam Bisai / Kashyap Vs Ogar Bhaskar