Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2216 of 2024 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Ward No. 25, Gurugovind Singh Ward, 2nd Floor Simran Tower, Pandri Road, In Front Of L.I.C. Building, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) -------(Insurer) --- Appellant versus
Legal Reasoning
consideration of this Court in this appeal. 10. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit it is liable to be and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram
Arguments
1 - Ramsundar S/o Shri Jugunpal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Bharrapara Pendra, Police Station Pendra, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ----- (Claimant) 2 - Mahadev Yadav S/o Late Hetram Yadav, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Anuppur, Police Station-Anuppur, District-Anuppur (M.P.) ------(Driver) 3 - Adarsh Pratap Singh S/o Shri Brijesh Singh Chauhan, Aged About 31 Years R/o Purani Basti, Police Line Colony, Police Station - Anuppur, District- Anuppur (M.P.) ---------(Owner) --- Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 : : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 18:23:15 +0530 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 16.01.2024, passed in Claim Case No.28 2 of 2022, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimant/respondent No.1 against the death of his son, in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.35,74,750/-, fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company/appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that in this appeal, appellant has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- based on the salary certificate issued by Shiladiya Associates, Raipur without the employer being examined to prove the said certificate before the learned Claims Tribunal. It is also contention of learned counsel for the appellant that certificate is not the original but photocopy, was produced before the learned Claims Tribunal that could not have been considered as evidence of income. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the nature of grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application and in the reply with regard to manner in which the accident occurred, death of deceased due to the motor accidental injuries and the finding that there was no breach of conditions of insurance policy as recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. The sole ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the 3 appellant that income of the deceased is raised on higher side. Perusal of the claim application would show that claimants, who is the old age father of deceased has filed an application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act pleading therein that his deceased son was an engineer (Lab Technician) and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Name of employer is also pleaded as Shiladiya Associates INC, Raipur. To prove the income as pleaded in the claim application, claimant has submitted deceased’s mark-sheets of High School (Ex.P-21), Higher Secondary School (Ex.P-22), the mark-sheet of B.E. from 1st Semester to 8th Semester of Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai from Ex.P-23 to Ex.P-30. Perusal of the mark-sheet of Class- 10th would show that deceased got distinction in five subjects in Class- 10th examination and distinction in two subjects in Higher Secondary School Examination i.e. in Class- 12th. The deceased also cleared B.E. of each semester without there being any obstruction with SIP more than 7.5. 5. From the aforementioned documents, which are original mark-sheets placed on record, the claimant has proved that his deceased son was an engineering graduate (in Civil Branch). Claimant has also placed on record before the learned Claims Tribunal the photocopy of the agreement entered into on 04.10.2021 between Shiladiya Associats and Nilesh Kumar (deceased son of claimant), which is an agreement for consulting services for construction supervision of rehabilitation and upgrading of group-B roads at Rajnandgaon in the State of C.G. under ADB Loan No. 3795-IND. 6. Photocopy of the letter dated 01.10.2021 issued from the office of 4 Project Director, ADB Project, Chhattisgarh State Road Sector Project, Public Works Department is also available to the Engineer/Team Leader, Shiladiya Associates, Raipur under the head of construction, supervision, rehabilitation and upgrading of Group-B road at Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh. Photocopy of pay slip is also submitted before the Claims Tribunal in the name of deceased mentioning payment to the deceased as fees of Rs.25,000/-. That payment is for the month of April, 2022, May, 2022 and June, 2022. 7. From the aforementioned documents available on record though it is not exhibited but can be considered with regard to the nature of occupation and income as pleaded by the claimant in the claim application. It is bounden duty of the Tribunal and the Courts to award just compensation to the legal representatives of deceased. In the case at hand, it is proved from mark-sheets placed in record that deceased was engineering graduate. The date of accident was of 17.08.2022. The income of deceased has to be considered taking note of all attending circumstances. During the period of accident, wages of unskilled labour was about Rs.10,000/- per month, therefore, also if income of an engineering graduate person is to be assessed notionally taking note of other attending circumstances, the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.25,000/- does not appear to be excessive or without any basis. 8. The claim application seeking compensation is filed under the Act, 1988, which is beneficial piece of legislation, therefore, if for any reason, the admissible documents could not be produced by the 5 claimants more so when the claimant is old age father of 60 years, this Court can assess the income by doing guess work considering the entire material available in the claim case. 9. For the foregoing discussions, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- to be excessive is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled. No other ground is raised for