[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Icic Lumbard General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav on 22 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:18358
ASHOK
SAHU NAFR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU
Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026.04.22
16:41:56
+0530
MAC No. 1848 of 2019
ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal
Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh. .......Insurer
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav, W/o. Kamta Ram Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o. Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, Post
Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Kamta Ram Yadav, S/o. Fulsingh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o.
Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
.......Claimants
3 - Chintu Ram Nishad, S/o. Thanwar Ram Nishad, R/o. Village Borid,
P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ......Driver.
4 - Ashok Sahu, S/o. Manglu Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation
Agriculture, R/o. Village Borid, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ......Owner.
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate
&
1 - Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav, W/o. Kamtaram Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, Occupation House Wife, R/o. Mathpuraina, Thana Tikrapara, Post
- Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Kamtaram Yadav, S/o. Fulsingh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o.
Mathpuraina, Thana Tikrapara, Post - Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District -
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
....(Claimants).
---Appellants
Versus
1 - Chinturam Nishad, S/o. Thanvarram Nishad, Occupation - Tractor
Driver, R/o. Village Borid, Thana - Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District -
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver)
2 - Ashok Sahu, S/o. Mangalu Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation -
Agriculture And Tractor Owner. R/o. Village - Borid, Thana -
Fingeshwar, Tahisl & District - Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh)......(Owner).
3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Branch Manager, Branch Office Commercial Bhawan Devendra Nagar
Mod, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer).
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
22.04.2026
1. Against the impugned award dated 05.08.2019 passed by the
learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in
Claim Case No.764/2017, the insurance company has preferred
MAC No.1848/2019 seeking exoneration from the liability to pay
the amount of compensation, whereas the claimants have preferred
MAC No.1770/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the
appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of
by this common order.
3. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit
that for the death of a 10 years old boy, only Rs. 5,00,000/- has
been awarded as compensation. He would further submit that in
light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Thangavel & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited1, the amount of compensation
should be awarded Rs. 8,70,000/-.
4. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did
not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle
and the owner of the offending vehicle also did not have a valid
permit to ply the vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not
liable to pay the compensation and, as such, the insurance company
be exonerated from its liability.
5. So far as the appeal of the insurance company is concerned, the
learned Claims Tribunal, after having considered the evidence
available on record, came to the conclusion that the insurance
company has failed to establish that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not have a valid & effective driving licence to drive the
vehicle and the owner of the offending vehicle also did not have
valid permit to ply the vehicle, which is a correct finding of fact
based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, the appeal of
the insurance company has no merit and the same is liable to be
and hereby dismissed.
6. So far as the appeal of the claimants is concerned, the Supreme
Court in the matter of Thangavel (supra) has awarded Rs.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1649
8,70,000/- for death of a 10 years old boy; therefore, this Court is
also inclined to award the compensation of Rs. 8,70,000/- as here
in this case also, a 10 years old boy was died in the accident.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.
8,70,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-,
the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.
3,70,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period
of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of claim application before the
Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned
award shall remain intact.
8. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and
the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award
is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ashok
