SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANAGER CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SUSHILA BAI KOSARE – Respondent
MAC/385/2021



##PAGE1##

Digitally signed

by AJINKYA

PANSARE

Date:

2026.02.04

10:47:45

1

+0530

2026:CGHC:5969

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 385 of 2021

 Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Branch

Office Raipur Ward No. 25 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) Second

Floor, Simran Tower, Pandri Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District

Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Smt. Sushila Bai Kosare W/o Late Shri Radheshyam Kosare Aged

About 43 Years Residing At Village Bijetala, District Rajnandgaon

(Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2. Devantin Kosare W/o Late Shri Ramhu Kosare Residing At Village

Bijetala, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

3. Akash Verma S/o Late Shri Parma Verma Residing At Village

Aarsi, Police Station Bori, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg

(Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Dilharan Nishad S/o Late Shri Devram Nishad Aged About 36

Years Resident Of Village Aarsi, Police Station Bori, Tehsil

Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Shashwat Yechuri, Adv. on

behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Adv.

For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Swapnil Thawani, Adv. on

behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Judgment On Board

3.2.2026

##PAGE2##

2

1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal

under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question

legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by

learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg

(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 553/2018 dated 3.12.2020, by which

liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 12,74,000/- has been

fastened upon the Insurance Company.

2) Facts of the present case are that on 17.9.2018, Radheshyam

Kosare was returning from Village Kheldi to Village Bodegaon on

motorcycle. When he reached near Village Bodegaon, offending

vehicle – Tata SUMO bearing registration No. CG-07-MB-0773

being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed said

motorcycle. In the accident, Radheshyam Kosare sustained

grievous injuries and died during course of treatment.

3) Claimants, who are the widow and mother of deceased moved

claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.

30,15,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 45 years and

was earning Rs. 500/- per-day working as carpenter at a saw-mill.

Insurance Company filed reply and took a specific plea that

deceased himself was negligent and driver of offending vehicle

did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident.

Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and

thereafter award was passed.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits

##PAGE3##

3

that according to Hospital Admission Ticket (Ex. P/2), deceased

who was in inebriated state fell down from the motorcycle and

sustained injuries ; Dr. Pooja Verma Patel (NAW/1) has proved

this fact. He further submits that Nidhi Mishra (NAW/2), Assistant

Law Officer of Insurance Company has stated in evidence that

deceased himself was negligent and false FIR was lodged

subsequently. He prays to set aside the award.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants

would oppose. He submits that though Dr. Pooja Verma Patel

stated in evidence that deceased was in inebriated condition when

brought to the hospital and on his instance, statement was

recorded in hospital admission ticket but eye-witness, namely,

Mohan Sen (AW/2) has categorically stated that he witnessed the

accident which was caused due to negligence on the part of driver

of offending vehicle. He further submits that Insurance Company

failed to lead evidence to prove that deceased was negligent or he

fell down from the motorcycle. He contends that claimant is only

expected to prove the case on a preponderance of probability and

not beyond reasonable doubt and filing of charge-sheet against

the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his

complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. In this

regard, he has plac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top