New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jamuna Bai

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15644

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 781 of 2020

¶6

1 - New India Insurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, Beside State Bank Main Branch, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suit Legal Hub Office, Second Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Jamuna Bai W/o Rameshwar Dhoba Aged About 45 Years Caste Dhoba And Are R/o Borodipa, Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Claimants)

¶10

2 - Rameshwar Dhoba S/o Rajkumar Dhoba Caste Dhoba And Are R/o Borodipa, Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Claimants)

¶11

3 - Komal Sanjay S/o Sukhiram Sanjay Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Chikhli, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Owner)

¶12

4 - Arun Nishad S/o Gurucharan Nishad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chikhli, Police Station And Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate. No.1 & 2

¶15

(Single Bench)

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.04.07 18:36:29 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

06/04/2026

¶21

The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 4.11.2019 passed by the 7 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.111/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,41,824/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶22

Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident had occurred on 15.6.2018 and Chandrabhanu (the deceased) was discharged from the hospital on 28.7.2018 and thereafter he died on 5.9.2018. Therefore, it could not be said that he died on account of rash and negligent driving and as such, the insurance company is not responsible.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas , learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 would support the impugned award and would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶25

Thought the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the deceased did not die on account of rash and negligent driving, however, no

¶26

3

¶27

evidence was led by the Insurance Company to establish the said fact. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is a correct finding of fact based on material available on record, which does not require any interference by this Court. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has also observed that no evidence/ document has been produced by the Insurance Company to establish any breach of policy. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal was absolutely justified in fastening liability on the insurance company.

¶28

So far as cross-appeal is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at 6,000/- whereas the income₹ should have been assessed at Rs.8,360/- per month. Towards Future prospects, the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2, 44, 800/-, which needs to be enhanced and towards loss of consortium, nothing has been awarded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the present is a death case, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount under the heads of loss of income, loss of consortium and towards future prospects. As such , the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:-

¶29

4

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Medical Expenses	Rs.54,024/-	Rs.54,024/-
2.	Ambulance charge	Rs.1,000/-	Rs.1,000/-
3.	Income of the deceased	Rs.6,000/-	Rs.8,360/-
4.	Yearly income	Rs.6,000/-x12 = Rs.72,000/-	Rs.8,360x12 = Rs.1,00,320/-
5.	½ personal expenses	Rs.36,000/-	Rs.50,160/-
6.	Loss of dependency, multiplier of 17	Rs.36,000/-x17 = 6,12,000/-	Rs.50,160/-x17 = Rs.8,52,720/-
7.	Futureprospect	Rs.2,44,800/-	Rs.3,41,088/-
8.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs,.15,000/-
10.	Loss of consortium	-	Rs.80,000/-
	Total award	Rs.9,41,824/-	Rs.13,58,832/-

¶31

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,41,824/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹13,58,832/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,41,824/- , the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹4,17,008/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of from the date of

¶32

compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶33

5

¶34

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is

¶35

dismissed and the cross-appeal preferred by respondents No.1 & 2 is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶37

Barve

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Jamuna Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Jamuna 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

Puran Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Prasad Sahu Vs Ravi Shankar Sahu

Ankit Singh Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Jamuna Bai Sone Vs Rajesh Kumar Dangi

Bhupendra Sahu Vs Ranveer Singh

Smt. Manti Netam Vs Chandakaramu Naidu