Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chamrin Bai Wd/o Late Shri Pardeshiram Rajak – Respondent
MAC No. 629 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Raj Awasthi
For the Respondents: None
The court upheld the Claims Tribunal’s compensation award, emphasizing proper assessment of evidence and factual determination.
Headnote:The appellant challenged an award of compensation made by the Claims Tribunal. The court analyzed facts surrounding a motor accident where the deceased, aged 20 years, was involved. It found that the Tribunal’s computation of compensation at Rs. 30,80,840/- was justified given the deceased's income. The appellant argued that the compensation was excessive but failed to provide sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's determination, dismissing the appeal as without merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the accident and factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion on compensation appeal arguments. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. court observations regarding evidence and assessment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
Order On Board
10/06/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident SHUBHAM Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No.
DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY
23/2017 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.
30,80,840/- as amount of compensation to the respondents.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.03.2017 at about 08:40 P.M., when the appellant was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 12 AJ 1149 and reached near Arda Square, the offending Trailor bearing registration no. CG 12 AS 1169 driven by the Respondent No. 2 dashed the appellant’s vehicle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries and thereafter, he died on the spot.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that though multiple grounds have been raised in this appeal, however, he is pressing this appeal only on the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to be on higher side. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amount of compensation in the facts of the case.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the claim case.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record has recorded a finding that on the date of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age, as mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex. P/9) and further, considered Ex. P/11 with respect to the date of birth as mentioned therein as 29.04.1996 and according to which, on the date of accident, the age of the deceased was 20 years
10 months and 08 days.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal further has considered the salary slip (Ex.
P/10) for assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 18,129.90/- (rounded off as Rs. 18,130/-) and accordingly, computed the amount of compensation of Rs. 28,45,840/-.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out as to how, the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being sans merit. 8. Certified copy as per rules.
