[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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)
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
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.
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
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
