Chattisgarh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company … vs Kumari Bai on 15 April, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by GOPAL
SINGH
Date:
2026.05.06
17:09:26 +0530
2026:CGHC:17214
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 714 of 2021
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.).
--- Appellant
versus
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.
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.
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)
4 - Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
(Driver)
--- Respondents
2
MAC No. 723 of 2021
1 – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through – Its Legal
Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301 – 302,
Corporate House, 169 R N T Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore
(M.P.), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh
— Appellant
versus
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
2 – Sham Bai W/o Bhawant Dhruv, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village
Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, Thasil Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh
3 – Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv, Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
MAC No.714 of 2021
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
MAC No.723 of 2021
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
3
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
15/04/2026
MAC No.714 of 2021
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.
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.
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.
4
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.
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.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner and driver supports
the impugned award.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care.
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 office 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.
5
He has exhibited the salary certificate and designation related
document as Ex.A18 and Ex.A19.
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.
10. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
11. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
MAC No.723 of 2021
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.
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
6
09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care.
7
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.
9. Thus, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
10. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Gopal
