[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance ... vs Ramesh Dhiwar on 6 April, 2026

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                            1




                                                     2026:CGHC:15570


ASHOK                                                              NAFR
SAHU

Digitally
signed by
ASHOK SAHU
Date:
2026.04.07
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
16:50:07
+0530


                               MAC No. 977 of 2019


     1 - Ramesh Dhiwar, S/o. Nan Dau Dhiwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o.
     Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And
     District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.


     2 - Smt. Anjani Dhiwar, W/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 38 Years,
     R/o. Village Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil
     And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.


     3 - Ku. Tarini Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 13 Years, Minor
     Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village
     Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.


     4 - Ku. Karuna Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 10 Years,
     Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village
     Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.


     5 - Karan Kumar, S/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor
     Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village
                                     2



Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                    --- Appellants
                                 versus

1 - Raju Dubey, S/o. Shyam Lal Dubey, Aged About 43 Years,
Occupation Driver And Transporter, R/o. Village Gondaiya, Tahsil And
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Offending Vehicle Pickup No.
CG. 13, L-2308).


2 - Ganesh Ram Sahu, S/o. Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o.
Village Pakariya, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara, District
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Pickup No.
CG -13, L-2308).


3 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered And Head Office Dare House, Second Floor No. 2, N.S.G.
Bose Road Chennai -60001 (India), Through Branch Manger M.S.
General Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office Hinduja Complex,
First Floor, No. 22, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of
Offending Vehicle Pick Up No. CG-13, L-2308).
                                                    --- Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Registered And Head Office Deyar House 2nd Floor NSG Bose Road, Chennai,

Through Branch Manager Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Hinduja Complex 1st Floor No. 22 Near Railway Line Devendra Nagar Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..................(Insurer)

--- Appellant Versus

1 - Ramesh Dhiwar, S/o. Nandau Dhiwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Smt. Anjana Dhiwar, W/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Ku. Tarini Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Ku. Karuna Dhiwar, D/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Karan Kumar Dhiwar, S/o. Ramesh Dhiwar, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Dhiwar, R/o. Village Pendrawa, P.O. Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

................(Claimants)

6 - Raju Dubey, S/o. Shyam Lal Dubey, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Village Godaiya P.O. Ranigaon P.S. Ratanpur Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver)

7 - Ganesh Ram Sahu, S/o. Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Pakariya, P.S. Mulmula (Akaltara) Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner)

--- Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate to 5/ Claimants For Respondents No.6 : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate on behalf &7 of Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate

(Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

06.04.2026

1. Against the impugned award dated 22.01.2019, passed by the

learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur,

passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.654/2017, the claimants

have preferred MAC No.977/2019 seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation and the insurance company has preferred

MAC No.1188/2019 questioning his liability to pay the amount of

compensation. Therefore, both the appeals are clubbed together,

heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the insurance company,

would submit that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit

and fitness certificate and further the deceased was gratuitous

passenger, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the

amount of compensation.

3. Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants, while

supporting the impugned award, seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation and would submit that the grounds taken

by the insurance company is not established, therefore, liability has

rightly been fastened upon the insurance company.

4. Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, learned counsel appearing for the driver &

owner of the offending vehicle, would support the impugned

award.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and gone through the records

meticulously.

6. The first ground taken by the insurance company is that the

deceased was gratuitous passenger, therefore, the insurance

company is not liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, the

statement of Manoj Shrivas (AW-2) may be referred herein wherein

he has clearly stated that the deceased had already de-boarded the

Bus and he was answering the call of nature. At that time, the

offending vehicle dashed him and he died and it has not been

controverted by the insurance company. As such, the finding of the

learned Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on

evidence available on record.

7. Similarly, with regard to the permit, the Claims Tribunal has clearly

recorded a finding in paragraph 18 of its judgment relying upon the

statement of Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Manager of the insurance

company, that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was

2750 Kg and as per Section 66(3)(i), if the unladen weight of the

vehicle is less than 3000 Kg then the permit is not required. The

finding recorded in this regard is also a finding of fact based on

evidence available on the record.

8. The last submission is with regard to fitness of the offending

vehicle. However, this argument is based on the facts and statement

of Rakesh Kumar (NAW-1) that since the police has filed the final

report against the owner of the vehicle for offence under Section

56/192 and 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the owner

did not have the valid fitness certificate. However, the mere

submission of the charge sheet would not per se amount to prove

the fact that the owner did not have valid fitness certificate of the

vehicle. It was open to the insurance company to prove the said fact

by clinching evidence.

9. In that view of the matter, the insurance company has failed to

establish that the offending vehicle did not have fitness certificate

on the date of accident. As such, the appeal of the insurance

company deserves to be and accordingly dismissed.

10. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased

Lokesh Dhiwar to be Rs. 6,000/- per month, however, in the

opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages

Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner,

Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have

been taken as Rs. 7,930/- per month. Accordingly, this Court is

recomputing the compensation as below:-

Heads Compensation awarded Compensation awarded by the Tribunal by this Court

Income as per Rs. 6,000/- per month = Rs. 7,930/- per month = minimum wages Rs. 72,000/- per annum Rs. 95,160/- per annum

Add future Rs. 72,000 + 28,800 = Rs. 95,160 + 38,064 = prospects @40% Rs. 1,00,800/- = Rs. 1,33,224/-

        Deduction of 1/2        Rs. 50,400 =             Rs. 66,612/-
        towards personal
           expenses




        Multiplier of 18      Rs. 50,400 x 18 =         Rs. 66,612 x 18
                               Rs. 9,07,200/-          = Rs. 11,99,016/-

         Loss of Estate         Rs. 10,000/-             Rs. 40,000/-

        Funeral Expenses        Rs. 10,000/-             Rs. 10,000/-

             Total             Rs. 9,27,200/-           Rs. 12,49,016/-