[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General ... vs Smt. Pushpa Kujur on 30 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:14791
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 168 of 2019
1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company 2nd
Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of L I C Building, Pandri Raipur, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Pushpa Kujur W/o Late Alok Kujur Aged About 38 Years R/o
Fundurdihari, Bichpara, Ward No. 8, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
2 - Abhijit Kujur S/o Late Alok Kujur Aged About 11 Years Minor They
Are Through Their Mother Smt. Pushpa Kujur W/o Late Alok Kujur, R/o
Fundurdihari, Bichpara, Ward No. 8, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
3 - Pranay Kujur S/o Late Alok Kujur Aged About 8 Years Minor They
Are Through Their Mother Smt. Pushpa Kujur W/o Late Alok Kujur, R/o
Fundurdihari, Bichpara, Ward No. 8, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
4 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Biran Ram Ekka Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Sarganva, Police Station And Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Shivchand Verma S/o Arjun Prasad Bunkar Aged About 40 Years R/o
In Bake Side Deyari Form Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KRISHNA KUMAR
KUMAR BARVE
BARVE Date:
2026.04.01
16:23:27
+0530
2
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company 2nd
Floor Simaran Tower ,in Front Of Lic Building ,padri ,raipur ,raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Dorothipa Toppo W/o Philmon Toppo Aged About 51 Years R/o
Fudrudihari, Beechpara ,ward No. 8, Ambikapur ,police Station
Gandhinagar ,tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.(Claimant),
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Biran Ram Ekka Aged About 22 Years Occupation
Driver ,r/o Village Sarganva, Police Station And Tehsil Balrampur
District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.(Driver), District : Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Shivchand Verma S/o Arjun Prasad Bunkar Aged About 40 Years R/o
In Bake Side Deyari Form Gandhinagar ,ambikapur ,district Sarguja
Chhattisgarh.(Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company 2nd
Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh ........(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Dorothipa Toppo W/o Philmon Toppo Aged About 51 Years R/o
Fundrudihari-Beechpara Ward No. 8 Ambikapur, P. S. Gandhinagar
Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh .........Claimant, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Biran Ram Ekka Aged About 22 Years Occupation
Driver R/o Village Sarganva, P. S. And Tahsil Balrampur, District
Balrampur Chhattisgarh........Driver, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Shivchand Verma S/o Arjun Prasad Bunkar Aged About 40 Years R/o
In Bake Side Deyari Form Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh......Owner, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
-- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 in : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate.
MAC Nos.179/2019 &
227/2019
For Respondent Nos.2 & : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
3 as also for Respondent
No.4 in MAC No. 168 /
2019.
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
30/03/2026
1. Since all the three Appeals and the Cross-Appeals filed in MAC
No.179/2019 & 227/2019 arise out of same accident, they are
clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred these Appeals
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the
Act, 1988') calling in question the legality, validity and correctness
of the award dated 14.9.2018 passed by the 3 rd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (for short
'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos.190/2016, 155/2017 &
156/2017 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.44,34,820/-,
Rs.16,53,400/- & Rs.2,74,420/- respectively, has been fastened on
the Insurance Company.
3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant has challenged the liability on the ground
that the offending vehicle was private vehicle and was being plied
for commercial purposes on hire, therefore, the Insurance Company
is not liable to pay compensation.
4. On the other hand, being an injury and death case, the
claimants/injured have preferred cross-objection seeking
enhancement of compensation vide MAC Nos.179/2019 &
227/2019.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
6. Though the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the offending
vehicle was being used for commercial purpose on hire, however,
the Insurance Company has examined owner of the vehicle namely,
Shiv Chandra Verma, who has clearly stated that he had handed
over the vehicle to Alok Kujur, who was his friend, as his vehicle
had suffered mechanical fault. However, he had not taken any rent.
In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a
finding that breach of policy has not been established.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the record and in view of the contradictory statement of
Shiv Chandra Verma, I do not find any merit in these Appeals,
which deserves to be and are hereby dismissed
Cross-objection in MAC No.179/2019
8. Heard on IA No.4, application for condonation of delay in filing the
cross-objection/appeal.
9. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and
delay in filing the cross-objection/appeal is condoned.
10. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of
the deceased at ₹4,500/- whereas the income should have been
assessed at Rs.6107/- per month. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and that the present is a death case, it
would be appropriate to enhance award amount under the heads of
loss of income, loss of consortium and loss of estate. As such, the
claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as
computed by this Court:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of income A. Rs. 4500 x 12 = A. Rs.6107x12 =
54,000 73,284/-
B. 40%, Rs.1800/- B. After adding
C. Multiplier 18 40%, Rs.
D. 50% Deduction 1,02,597/-
= 6,80,000/- C. Multiplier
applied 18,
Rs.9,23,378/-
2. Medicine & Travel Rs.8,98,000/- Rs.8,98,000/-
3. For attendant Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
4. Transportation Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6. Nutritious Food Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
expenses
7. Loss of consortium Rs.44,000/-
8. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/-
Grand Total Rs.16,53,400/- Rs.19,43,378/-
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
₹16,53,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
₹19,43,378/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹16,53,400/-,
the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹2, 89,
978/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of
compensation within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. It
is made clear that since the delay in filing the cross-objection has
already been condoned, the claimant would not be entitled for
interest of the interregnum period. Rest of the conditions of the
impugned award shall remain intact.
Cross-objection in MAC No.227/2019
12. Heard on IA No.4, application for condonation of delay in filing the
cross-objection/appeal.
13. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and
delay in filing the cross-objection/appeal is condoned.
14. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a meagre
compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards Attendant, Rs.10,000/-
towards nutritional food, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and that in the present case, claimant
received serious injuries on her head, it would be appropriate to
enhance award amount under the heads of attendant, nutritional
food, transportation and pain & suffering. As such, the claimant
will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this
Court:-
Sr. Heads Compensation awarded Compensation
No. by the Tribunal awarded by this
Court
1. Medical expenses Rs.2,29,420/- Rs.2,29,420/-
2. For attendant Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,000/-
3. Towards Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
nutritional food
4. For Rs.10,000/- Rs.15.000/-
Transportation
5. For Pain and Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Suffering
Grand Total Rs.2,74,420/- Rs.3,24,420/-
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of
Rs.2,74,420/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.3,24,420/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,74,420/-,
the claimant/injured is held to be entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.50,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. It
is made clear that since the delay in filing the cross-objection has
already been condoned, the claimant/injured would not be entitled
for interest of the interregnum period. Rest of the conditions of the
impugned award shall remain intact.
16. In the result, the Appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are
dismissed and the Cross-objections are allowed to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Barve
