TATA A.I.G. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT. LEELADEVI KATHALE
MAC/874/2022 · 2025-12-14
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61090 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61090 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:60991
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 874 of 2022 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Leeladevi Kathale W/o Late Pushpendra Kumar Kathale, Aged About 28 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Tesha, D/o Late Pushpendra Kumar Kathale, Aged About 4 Years Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leeladevi Kathale/respondent No. 1, R/o Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Garvit Kathale, S/o. Late Pushpendra Kumar Kathale, Aged About 3 Years Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leeladevi Kathale/respondent No. 1, R/o
2 Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dataram Katale, S/o Malikram Kathale, Aged About 56 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Khuleshwari Kathale, W/o Shri Dataram Kathale Aged About 48 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raskumar Malhotra S/o Devram Malhotra, R/o Village Sakreli Khurd, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 7 - Bodhram Ratre S/o Ramadhar Ratre, R/o Village And Post Sendri, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board 15.12.2025
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 11/04/2022 passed by learned First
3 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 68/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 77,10,935/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Pushpendra Kathle and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that death of the deceased did not occur on account of the accident committed by the offending vehicle and to prove the said fact, Dr. Ravishekhar from KIMS Superspeciality Hospital, Bilaspur was to be examined for which application was filed by the Insurance Company but reasonable opportunity was not granted to produce the said witness and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the accident occurred on account of own negligence of the deceased.
3.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
4
5. A careful perusal of the record would show that on 29/03/2022, the application filed by the Insurance Company was accepted by the Claims Tribunal and it was
directed to produce Dr. Ravishekhar from KIMS Superspeciality Hospital, Bilaspur on the next date of hearing on his own expense failing which the opportunity to lead evidence shall be closed, however, on 07/04/2022, Dr. Ravishekhar was still not present and no steps were taken to produce him before the Court and get him examined and therefore, the opportunity to lead evidence was closed for the Insurance Company, which in my considered opinion, is strictly in accordance with law as reasonable opportunity was granted to the Insurance Company to lead evidence. As such, the plea taken by the Insurance Company that death of the deceased Pushpendra Kathle occurred on account of his own negligence could not be established. I do not find any merit in this appeal.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet