Chattisgarh High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma on 3 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 366 of 2016
• Reliance General Insurance Company Limited , Through Its Legal Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, National Corporate
House Opposite Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma W/o Late Harihar Sharma, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Qr. No. E.W.S. 1411, Housing Board, Bhilai, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
2. Ku. Nisha Sharma D/o Late Harihar Sharma, Aged About 18 Years R/o Qr. No.
E.W.S. 1411, Housing Board, Bhilai, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
3. Chandan Sharma S/o Late Harihar Sharma, Aged About 16 Years Minor
Through Mother Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma W/o Late Harihar Sharma, R/o Qr. No.
E.W.S. 1411, Housing Board, Bhilai, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
4. Golu Sharma S/o Late Harihar Sharma, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through
Mother Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma W/o Late Harihar Sharma, R/o Qr. No. E.W.S.
1411, Housing Board, Bhilai, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh
5. Mohan Anwar Khan S/o Shahjahan Shah, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sai Tamar
Toli, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
6. Mohammad Jiyaul Haq S/o Late Moh. Sajjak, R/o Rajdhani Transport,
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri A.L.Singroul, Advocates
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
03/12/2021
1. Heard on I.A.No.1/16, application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
2. Upon consideration of the application, I am of the view that sufficient
cause has been shown for delay in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1/16 is accordingly
allowed. Delay is condoned.
3. Heard on admission of the appeal.
4. Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
learned Claims Tribunal committed gross illegality in holding that respondent
No.5 / driver had valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Further
submission is that the deceased was negligent while riding the motorcycle and
the quantum of compensation is also on higher side.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival
submissions made herein above and also gone through the records with utmost
circumspection.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal, while passing the judgment, held that the driver
had effective driving license. The investigation report has not been proved by
examination of the investigator. Furthermore, the RTO has also not been
examined. In paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment, statement of eye witness
(PW2) has been recorded that respondent No.5 / driver was negligent in driving
the vehicle and the deceased was not negligent. Furthermore, the finding with
regard to quantum is not established to be on higher side and no amount for
future prospects have been granted. Therefore, I do not find any extraordinary
ground to entertain this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
( Sanjay K. Agrawal )
Judge
Deepti
