Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela)

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:5705

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 666 of 2021

¶7

1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower Indore M. P.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela) W/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Deputy Singal, Gopal Nagar, Kalmana, Nagpur Maharastra (Claimant)

¶11

2 - Laxman Sahu (Banpela) S/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 6 Years Respondent No. 2 Being Minor Represented Through Respondent No. 1 Mother Uttara Sahu, R/o Deputy Singal, Gopal Nagar, Kalmana, Nagpur Maharastra (Claimant)

¶12

3 - Ku. Yachana Sahu (Banpela) D/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 5 Years Respondent No. 3 Being Minor Represented Through Respondent No. 1 Mother Uttara Sahu, R/o Deputy Singal, Gopal Nagar, Kalmana, Nagpur Maharastra (Claimant)

¶13

4 - Bhukhin Bai Sahu W/o Shyamu Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ghotwani, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶14

5 - Shyamu Sahu (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-10-2025 And 1012-2025

¶15

6 - Sudhir Bangre S/o Madhukar Bangre Aged About 45 Years R/o Hariram Near Ganesh Mandir, Village And Post Pulgaon, P. S. Pulgaon, District Wardha Maharastra (Driver Cum Owner)

¶16

2

¶17

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellant/ Insurance Company	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 4	: Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.6	: None.

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Judgment On Board

¶20

02-02-2026

¶21

1) The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Accident Claims Tribunal to the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.25 of 2019 dated 18.8.2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.23,60,902/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Surendra Sahu.

¶22

2) The facts, in nutshell, are that on 16.4.2019 at about 5:30 pm, the driver of the offending Car bearing registration No.CG 07 LA 3080 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, resultantly, the deceased sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, he died. The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 35 years and earning Rs.13,000/per month as the deceased was a Crane Operator in a transport company. The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the

¶23

3

¶24

Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being plied without a permit. Learned Tribunal framed the issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed.

¶25

3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. He would contend that the claimants could not adduce any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He would contend that there was head on collision between the Car and the motorcycle and a specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence but the learned Tribunal decided the issue in negative. He would pray to set aside the award.

¶26

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the deceased was a Crane Operator and claimants adduced sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month.

¶27

5) With regard to contributory negligence, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that neither the owner of the offending Car nor the Insurance Company led evidence to establish negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle

¶28

4

¶29

(deceased). Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in negative. He would submit that though the driver of the Car was examined but failed to establish negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.

¶30

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

¶31

7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation

¶32

and Others¹ while dealing with the similar issue in para 10 held

¶33

as under :-

¶34

“10. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of the common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra) held that in absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the doctrine of common law cannot be applied.

¶36

9) In the present case, the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company failed to lead any cogent evidence to

¶37

1 . 2014 (4) SCC 511

¶38

5

¶39

establish the fact that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly decided issue of contributory negligence in negative.

¶40

10) A perusal of evidence adduced by the claimants would further reveal that they failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. In absence of evidence, with regard to income, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages matrix. The Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, whereas the minimum wage admissible to a skilled labourer in the month of April, 2019 was Rs.9,830/-. The deceased was a Crane operator and the Insurance Company failed to prove the contrary, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶41

11) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶42

12) The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶44

Nimmi

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela)

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

Sita Bai (Died and deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Surojiya Vs Deepak Sahu

Branch Manager Vs Gahru Singh Baiga

Narayan Bhagat Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Akshay Das Vs Babban Rai S/o Mohar Rai

Laxmin Bai Chouhan Vs Satyanarayan Gond