Dismissed¶45

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kumari Bai

Chhattisgarh HC14 Apr 2026MAC/714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: MAC appeal; Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; quantum of compensation; future prospects 15%; income tax deduction; salary certificate Ex.A18 Ex.A19; Hostel Superintendent (UDT); AW3 proof of income Rs.51,740 / Rs.51,274; minor victim compensation; pay and recover; rash and negligent driving; vehicle No.CG 09 B 1664; Reliance General Insurance Company; MACT Kabirdham awards upheld; NAFR; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Sachin Singh Rajput, J.; accident dated 28.2.2017.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant insurance company; both appeals (MAC No.714 of 2021 and MAC No.723 of 2021) dismissed, the impugned Tribunal awards left intact ('Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact'), and pending applications disposed of. ¶45

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

In MAC No.714 of 2021, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to respondents No.1 to 3/claimants for the death of Chunnu Singh was excessive, the insurer contending that the claimants did not prove the deceased's profession and income by cogent and prudent evidence. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Upholding the Tribunal's assessment in Claim Case No.77 of 2019: the Tribunal rightly relied on the claimants' evidence (including AW3's deposition and salary certificate Ex.A18), found the deceased's monthly income to be Rs.51,274, added 15% towards future prospects, deducted income tax, and awarded Rs.52,38,920; in this Court's opinion the Tribunal's finding was based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, so the insurer's quantum challenge failed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

In MAC No.723 of 2021, since the Claims Tribunal's order was one of pay and recover (insurer to pay and recover from respondent No.3/owner and driver), the insurer's challenge to the quantum of compensation was not sustainable and the appeal deserved dismissal.

¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sachin Singh Rajput, J.), Order dated 15/04/2026 — Two insurance appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MAC No.714 of 2021 and MAC No.723 of 2021) against awards dated 20.9.2021 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, arising out of the same accident of 28.2.2017 caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.CG 09 B 1664 driven and owned by Sukhnandan Dhruv. (i) MAC No.714 of 2021 — death of Chunnu Singh (aged about 52), a Hostel Superintendent (Upper Division Teacher): the Tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence — AW3's deposition and salary/designation documents Ex.A18 and Ex.A19 — fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.51,274, added 15% towards future prospects, deducted income tax, and awarded Rs.52,38,920 against a claim of Rs.82,67,200. Held: the Tribunal's finding was based on proper appreciation of the evidence; challenge confined to quantum failed; appeal dismissed. (ii) MAC No.723 of 2021 — death of minor Ku. Preeti Markam (aged about 13): award of Rs.2,95,000 against a claim of Rs.10,80,000, with the Tribunal directing pay and recovery from the owner/driver respondent No.3. Held: where the order is one of pay and recover, the insurer's challenge to the quantum of compensation is not sustainable; appeal dismissed. In both matters the rest of the conditions of the impugned awards were left intact and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.05.06 17:09:26 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17214

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 714 of 2021

¶7

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

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Kumari Bai Wd/o Late Chunnu Singh Dhruv Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Mukesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Chunnu Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Rewati Dhruv D/o Late Chunnu Singh Dhruv Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶13

4 - Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

¶16

MAC No. 723 of 2021

¶17

1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Its Legal OfÏcer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301 - 302, Corporate House, 169 R N T Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh

¶18

--- Appellant

¶19

versus

¶20

1 - Bhawant S/o Kartik Dhruv, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, Thasil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶21

2 - Sham Bai W/o Bhawant Dhruv, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, Thasil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶22

3 - Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Respondents

¶24

MAC No.714 of 2021

¶25

For Appellant	: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 3	: Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate with
	Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.4	: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶26

MAC No.723 of 2021

¶27

For Appellant	: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶28

¶29

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

15/04/2026

¶32

MAC No.714 of 2021

¶33

1. Challenging the award dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.77 of 2019, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the insurance company.

¶34

2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.82,67,200 the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.52,38,920 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants on account of death of Chunnu Singh in an accident that occurred on 28.2.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.4.

¶35

3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 52 years. He was working as a Hostel Superintendent (Upper Division Teacher) and earning Rs.54,000 per month. The claim application was resisted by the appellant and respondent No.4 on various grounds including the insurance company taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation.

¶36

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that challenge is only to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants. He submits that the claimants could not prove the profession and income of the deceased by cogent and prudent evidence. Thus, suitable deduction may be made in the compensation awarded.

¶38

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants supports the impugned award. He submits that the deceased was a government employee and his salary was also proved. The Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the salary income of the deceased and has awarded just compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner and driver supports the impugned award.

¶40

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

¶41

8. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was a Hostel Superintendent (UDT). In order to prove the pleadings, respondents No.1 to 3/claimants examined Mukesh Kumar Dhurve (AW1), Sonau Ram Dhurve (AW2) and Rudramani Singh Thakur (AW3). AW1 and AW2 speaks about the happening of the incident, whereas AW3 speaks about the salary of the deceased. AW3 was Assistant Grade-II working in the ofÏce of Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). According to his statement, the deceased was working as a Superintendent in the boys hostel and was earning Rs.51,740.

¶42

¶43

He has exhibited the salary certificate and designation related document as Ex.A18 and Ex.A19.

¶44

9. Learned Claims Tribunal found the evidence led by the claimants reliable and found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.51,274 and after adding 15% towards future prospects and also deducting necessary income tax and after adding amount of other heads, awarded the above stated compensation. In the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

¶45

10. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶46

11. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶47

MAC No.723 of 2021

¶48

1 . Challenging the award dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.88 of 2019, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the insurance company.

¶49

2 . By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.10,80,000 the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants on account of death of Ku. Preeti Markam in an accident that occurred on 28.2.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG

¶50

¶51

09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.3.

¶52

3 . As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 13 years. She could financially aid her parents in future. The claim application was resisted by the appellant and respondent No.3 on various grounds including the insurance company taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation.

¶53

4 . Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that challenge is to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants. The deceased was a minor girl. Thus, suitable deduction may be made in the compensation awarded.

¶54

5 . Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants supports the impugned award. He submits that the liability is fastened upon respondent No.3/owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the appellant/insurance company has been ordered to first pay the compensation and later recover it from respondent No.3. He also submits that the assessment of compensation made by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.

¶55

6 . Learned counsel for respondent No.3/owner and driver opposes the impugned award and submits that the insurance company should be held liable to satisfy the award.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

8 . The order of the Claims Tribunal is to pay and recover. Therefore, the challenge of the appellant/insurance company to the quantum of compensation is not sustainable. The appeal preferred by the insurance company deserves to be dismissed.

¶59

9 . Thus, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶60

10 . All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

( Sachin Singh Rajput )

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Gopal

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Awards dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh): (i) in Claim Case No.77 of 2019, challenged in MAC No.714 of 2021, awarding Rs.52,38,920 against a claim of Rs.82,67,200 for the death of Chunnu Singh; (ii) in Claim Case No.88 of 2019, challenged in MAC No.723 of 2021, awarding Rs.2,95,000 against a claim of Rs.10,80,000 for the death of Ku. Preeti Markam.¶33
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) · 20.9.2021
Prior proceeding
Appeal MAC No.714 of 2021 filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the MV Act against the Tribunal's award in Claim Case No.77 of 2019.¶33
Prior proceeding
In Claim Case No.77 of 2019 the Tribunal awarded Rs.52,38,920 to respondents No.1 to 3/claimants against a claim of Rs.82,67,200.¶34
Prior proceeding
Death of Chunnu Singh caused in an accident on 28.2.2017 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.4.¶34
Prior proceeding
Per claim pleadings, deceased Chunnu Singh was about 52 years old, working as Hostel Superintendent (Upper Division Teacher) earning Rs.54,000 per month; the insurer took a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.¶35
Prior proceeding
Claimants examined three witnesses; AW3 Rudramani Singh Thakur (Assistant Grade-II, office of Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Kabirdham) proved the salary certificate and designation-related documents Ex.A18 and Ex.A19, deposing the deceased earned Rs.51,740 per month as hostel Superintendent.¶43
Prior proceeding
Appeal MAC No.723 of 2021 filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the MV Act against the Tribunal's award in Claim Case No.88 of 2019.¶48
Prior proceeding
In Claim Case No.88 of 2019 the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,95,000 to respondents No.1 and 2/claimants against a claim of Rs.10,80,000 for the death of Ku. Preeti Markam in the same accident of 28.2.2017 involving vehicle No.CG 09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.3.¶49
Prior proceeding
Per claim pleadings, deceased Ku. Preeti Markam was aged about 13 years and could financially aid her parents in future; the Tribunal framed issues and awarded the compensation; the insurer pleaded violation of policy terms and conditions.¶52
Prior proceeding
The Claims Tribunal's order in Claim Case No.88 of 2019 was one of pay and recover — insurer directed to pay compensation and recover from respondent No.3/owner and driver.¶58

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kumari Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kumari Bai

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

Smt. Asu Gond Vs Mantosh Sahu

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Sushila Yadav

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Premin Bai Dhruv

Anju Sharma Vs Vishwanath Bhardwaj

Tishant Sinha Vs Rakesh Bhola

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Parmila Sahu