Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rashmi Devi

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:2026.01.09 10:46:33 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:1132

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 684 of 2021

¶7

Smt. Rashmi Devi Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur, Post And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ku. Vaishali Meshram, D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur, Post And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Ekant Singh S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Rashmi Devi, Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur, Post And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Nikhil Meshram, S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Rashmi Devi, Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram, R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur, Post And Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

Jitendra Kumar Bangani S/o. Jeevan Lal Bangani, Aged About 46 Years R/o Motor Stand Ward, Near Gujrati Samaj Bhavan, Thana City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, 106-7, Wall Port Ozone Bilaspur Road, Near Fafadih Chauk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Respondent(s)

¶16

with

¶17

MAC No. 773 of 2021

¶18

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager , Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db , City Corporate Park, Flat No. 01, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Smt. Rashmi Devi W/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur , Post And Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶22

2

¶23

Ku. Vaishali D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur , Post And Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶24

Ekant Singh Meshram D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rashmi Devi, R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur , Post And Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶25

Nikhil Meshram S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Meshram Aged About 11 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rashmi Devi, R/o Village Koliyamar, Ward No. 4, Gurur , Post And Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶26

5. Jitendra Bangani S/o Jeevan Lal Bangani Aged About 46 Years R/o Motor Stand Ward, Near Gujrati Samaj Bhawan, Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari , District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver)

¶27

--- Respondent(s)

¶28

For Appellants/Claimants	MAC No. 684 of 2021 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2/	: Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of
Insurance Company	Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶29

MAC No. 773 of 2021

¶30

For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶32

08.01.2026

¶33

MAC No. 684 of 2021 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas, MAC No. 773 of 2021 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum part of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Balod in Claim Case No. 119/2019 dated 26.08.2021, wherein, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,17,125/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on account of death of Rajesh Kumar Meshram.

¶34

The fact in brief are that on 28.05.2019 the driver of the offending vehicle TVS Jupiter bearing registration No. CG 05 AF 0191 by driving it rashly and

¶35

3

¶36

negligently dashed the bike of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Meshram, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The widow and children of deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that the deceased was Shiksha Karmi Grade – II earning Rs. 41,110/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs. 78,00,000/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in that claim petition.

¶37

Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate appearing for the claimants would argue that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to two of the claimants. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. He would fairly submit that on other heads the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation.

¶38

Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate would submit that according to service record, date of birth of the deceased was 16.06.1973 and on the date of accident i.e. 28.05.2019, he was aged about 46 years, but the learned Tribunal considered his age 45 years and applied multiplier accordingly. He would contend that the learned Tribunal committed error by granting 10% interest on the amount of compensation which is at higher side. He would pray to modify the award accordingly. With regard to enhancement of compensation, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶40

According to service record {High School (Ex. P/14c) & Higher Secondary (P/13c)} date of birth of the deceased is 16.06.1973. He met with an accident on 28.05.2019, and thus, he had not completed 46 years of age on the date of accident, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly considered his age 45 years and applied multiplier accordingly. The

¶41

4

¶42

contention made by Mr. Gupta in this regard is hereby rejected.

¶43

With regard to rate of interest, the power is discretionary and the learned Tribunal has exercised its power. The Insurance Company failed to demonstrate as to why and how the interest rate of 10% is perverse or illegal.

¶44

Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to two of the claimants. Accordingly, the claimants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 96,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% on that head. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶45

Accordingly, appeal preferred by the Insurance Company (MAC No. 773 of 2021) is dismissed and appeal preferred by the claimants (MAC No. 684 of 2021) is partly allowed .

¶46

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

$iddhant

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rashmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rashmi Devi

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

Branch Manager-Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Malti Kurre

Awadh Kishore Vs Harjeet Singh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Anita Netam

Girish Kumar Mishra Vs Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

Prakash Patel Vs Omprakash Gendre

Smt. Rashmi Devi Vs Jitendra Kumar Bangani