Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager Chola Mandalam M.S. ... vs Santra Devi on 10 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT 2026:CGHC:11291
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.03.10
15:30:20
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1691 of 2024
Branch Manager Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
Limited, Branch Office- Ground Floor, Krishna Complex, Dhirampur Road,
Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address- 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite L.I.C.
Building, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) ------(Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-13-Z-5967)
... Appellant
versus
1. Santra Devi W/o Late Ramprakash Yadav, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village-Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala, Chandi Manipur, District-
Sarguja (C.G.) -----(Claimant)
2. Brijlal Yadav S/o Late Ramprakash Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village-Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala, Chandi Manipur, District-
Sarguja (C.G.) -----(Claimant)
3. Sushila Yadav D/o Late Ramprakash Yadav, Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village-Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala, Chandi Manipur, District-
Sarguja (C.G.) -----(Claimant)
4. Muskan Yadav D/o Late Ramprakash Yadav, Aged About 16 Years Minor
Hence Representing Through Mother Res.No.1 Santra Devi W/o
Ramprakash Yadav, R/o Village-Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala,
Chandi Manipur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) -----(Claimant)
5. Devmania W/o Prithvinath Yadav, Aged About 74 Years R/o Village-
Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala, Chandi Manipur, District- Sarguja
(C.G.) -----(Claimant)
6. Prithvinath Yadav S/o Gedal Ram Yadav, Aged About 75 Years R/o Village-
Inderpur Chitabahar, Post-Bhitthikala, Chandi Manipur, District- Sarguja
(C.G.) -----(Claimant)
7. Parmeshwar Patel Allies Tengnu S/o Shantilal Patel, Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village-Chaple., Thana Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ----(Driver Of
Vehicle No. Cg-13-Z-5967)
8. Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Chandrika Prasad Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village- Chaple, Thana- Kharsia, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ----(Owner Of
Vehicle No. Cg-13-Z-5967)
... Respondent(s)
2
For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate holding the brief Company of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6/ : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate Claimants Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2026
1. The Insurance Company has challenged judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja passed in Claim Case No. 03/2023 dated 04.05.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Ramprakash Yadav.
2. The facts in brief are that on 20.05.2022 at around 6.08 hours Ramprakash Yadav was returning to village Inderpur on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15 CL 9452, near village Alkapuri, Police Station Manipur, driver of the offending Scorpio bearing registration No. CG 13 Z 5967 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorbike, resultantly, Ramprakash Yadav fell down, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment succumbed to death. The claimants, who are widow, three children and parents filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 44 years and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and took specific plea that on the date of accident vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
3. The Insurance Company denied the averments made in claim petition and took plea that the deceased himself was negligent and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence and there was breach of 3 conditions of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed.
4. Ms. Ashish Pandey, Advocate would argue that accident took place on 20.05.2022, whereas, claim application was filed on 02.01.2023 after expiry of six months. He would contend that as application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act was preferred contrary to the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, thus, it was not maintainable before the learned Tribunal. It is further argued that the offending Scorpio was not involved in the accident. He would contend that specific plea was taken in this regard in the reply. It is also argued that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have also taken this plea in their reply and the claimants failed to establish involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. He would pray to set-aside the award.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate appearing for the claimants would oppose. He would contend that the deceased Ramprakash met with an accident on 20.05.2022, whereas, merg intimation was registered on 27.05.2022. He would contend that after merg enquiry FIR was registered on 10.07.2022. He would contend that from date of registration of FIR, the claim petition is within prescribed period of limitation. With regard to non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, Mr. Arham Siddiqui would submit that the driver and owner as well as Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove this fact. He would submit that the Insurance Company did not examine any witness to substantiate this fact. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered all the issues including the submissions made by the Insurance Company, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4
7. Admittedly, the deceased Ramprakash met with an accident on 20.05.2022, merg intimation was registered on 27.05.2022, FIR was registered vide Ex. P/2 based on merg enquiry on 10.07.2022. The offending vehicle was seized by police on 20.11.2022 vide Ex. P/9. The driver of the offending vehicle was arrested on 20.11.2022 vide Ex. P/10. The police investigated the matter and filed final report. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle never made any complaint against registration of FIR, seizure of vehicle and arrest of driver. Further, no complaint was made to the superior police authorities by driver and owner with regard to non-involvement of offending vehicle. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not lead evidence to prove the factum of non- involvement of vehicle. The Insurance Company also failed to examine any witness, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Pandey with regard to non- involvement of offending vehicle is hereby rejected.
8. With regard to delay, there was no inordinate delay in filing claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The deceased met with an accident on 20.05.2022 and on 02.01.2023 claim petition was filed by the claimants. Thus, claim petition was preferred before the learned Tribunal with delay of 47 days.
9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors. passed in SLP(C) No(s). 8412-8413/2023 in para 5 held as under :-
"5. It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under 5 sub-Section (3) or Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."
10. Thus, in my opinion, the second contention made by Mr. Pandey with regard to delay is also not acceptable. The learned Tribunal has considered all grounds raised by the Insurance Company and after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence granted compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant