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

The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Prunima Devangan and Ors – Respondent
MAC 268/2015



Advocates:
['B N NANDE', '', 'S N NANDE', 'RAKESH THAKUR', '', 'SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No. 268 of 2015

The New India Assurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager,

Micro Branch Opposite United Hospital Near Old Bus Stand Rajnandgaon

Tehsil And District Rajnajdgaon C.G. Through Authorized Signatory For

Divisional Office, 460500 The New India Assurance Company Limited

Divisional Office Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1.

Smt. Purnima Devangan, aged 26 years Wd/o Late Eman Lal Devangan

2.

Minor Abhinav Devangan, S/o Eman Lal Devangan Aged About 4 Years

Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Purnima Devangan

Both R/o Ward No. 8 Chouki Road Sevtapara Dongargaon Tehsil

Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3.

Chunu Ram S/o Kharnu Ram Devangan Aged About 45 Years

4.

Smt. Revti W/o Chunu Ram Devangan Aged About 42 Years

3 and 4 R/o Village- Garka P.S. Devri District Balod, Chhattisgarh

5.

Yogesh Kumar Shri Harichand Nirmalkar Aged About 26 Years R/o

Village- Gahira Navagaon Tehsil Devri District- Balod, Chhattisgarh

(Driver)

----Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant

: Shri BN Nande, and Shri Priyanshu

Gupta, Advocates

For Respondents- 1 and 2

: Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate

For Respondents- 3 to 5

: None appears

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri PR Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

22.01.2021

1.

Appellant/NA2 Insurance Company preferred this appeal under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the impugned

award dated 02.12.2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident

Clams Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case

No.174 of 2013 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application

under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 for and awarded Rs.3,98,000/- as

compensation in a fatal accident case.

Mac 268 of 2015

2

2.

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.10.2011 Eman

Dewangan, was returning from Indore to his house at Dongargarh, District

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh on Maruti 'A' Star Car bearing No.CG07-MB-0539

(hereafter referred to as 'offending Car') along with his friend Umesh. Car was

driven by NA1. On the way near Monu Dhaba at about 7.30 am in between

Pipariya-Tamiya Road, offending Car dashed with stationary Tanker and met with

an accident. In the said accident Eman Dewangan (occupant-cum-owner)

suffered grievous injuries on his person and died on spot. Accident was reported

to Police Station Tamiya, District Chindwada (MP)

3.

Claimants/respondents-1 and 2, who are widow and child of deceased

Eman Dewangan filed an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988,

pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 28 years,

an able bodied person, working with the private Insurance Company since last

five years and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The claimants were fully

dependants upon the income of deceased, claimed Rs.11 Lakhs as total

compensation.

4.

NA1, driver of offending Car did not appear before the claims Tribunal and

was proceeded ex-parte.

5.

NA2, Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim application while

denying the pleadings of claim application, further pleaded that the amount of

compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, fact of accident is required to be

proved by the claimants, for want of verification, Insurance of the Car was denied.

Accident was with stationery vehicle, which was standing on the road without any

indication or signal as such, the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the

Mac 268 of 2015

3

Tanker are necessary party. Deceased himself was owner and insured of

offending Car and not a third party, hence, claim application under Sectio

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