1 2026:CGHC:17214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 714 of 2021 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal OfÏcer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301 - 302, Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.). --- Appellant versus 1 - Kumari Bai Wd/o Late Chunnu Singh Dhruv Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mukesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Chunnu Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rewati Dhruv D/o Late Chunnu Singh Dhruv Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chimra, P.S. Kawardha, Presently R/o Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No. 5, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4 - Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Driver) --- Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.05.06 17:09:26 +0530 2 MAC No. 723 of 2021 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Its Legal OfÏcer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301 - 302, Corporate House, 169 R N T Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh --- Appellant versus 1 - Bhawant S/o Kartik Dhruv, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, Thasil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sham Bai W/o Bhawant Dhruv, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, Thasil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Sukhnandan Dhruv S/o Parasram Dhruv, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kusumghata, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No.714 of 2021 For Appellant : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate MAC No.723 of 2021 For Appellant : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/04/2026 MAC No.714 of 2021 1. Challenging the award dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.77 of 2019, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the insurance company. 2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.82,67,200 the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.52,38,920 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants on account of death of Chunnu Singh in an accident that occurred on 28.2.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.4. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 52 years. He was working as a Hostel Superintendent (Upper Division Teacher) and earning Rs.54,000 per month. The claim application was resisted by the appellant and respondent No.4 on various grounds including the insurance company taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that challenge is only to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants. He submits that the claimants could not prove the profession and income of the deceased by cogent and prudent evidence. Thus, suitable deduction may be made in the compensation awarded. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants supports the impugned award. He submits that the deceased was a government employee and his salary was also proved. The Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the salary income of the deceased and has awarded just compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner and driver supports the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 8. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was a Hostel Superintendent (UDT). In order to prove the pleadings, respondents No.1 to 3/claimants examined Mukesh Kumar Dhurve (AW1), Sonau Ram Dhurve (AW2) and Rudramani Singh Thakur (AW3). AW1 and AW2 speaks about the happening of the incident, whereas AW3 speaks about the salary of the deceased. AW3 was Assistant Grade-II working in the ofÏce of Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). According to his statement, the deceased was working as a Superintendent in the boys hostel and was earning Rs.51,740. 5 He has exhibited the salary certificate and designation related document as Ex.A18 and Ex.A19. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal found the evidence led by the claimants reliable and found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.51,274 and after adding 15% towards future prospects and also deducting necessary income tax and after adding amount of other heads, awarded the above stated compensation. In the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 10. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. MAC No.723 of 2021 1. Challenging the award dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.88 of 2019, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the insurance company. 2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs.10,80,000 the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants on account of death of Ku. Preeti Markam in an accident that occurred on 28.2.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 6 09 B 1664 driven and owned by respondent No.3. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 13 years. She could financially aid her parents in future. The claim application was resisted by the appellant and respondent No.3 on various grounds including the insurance company taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in driving the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that challenge is to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants. The deceased was a minor girl. Thus, suitable deduction may be made in the compensation awarded. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants supports the impugned award. He submits that the liability is fastened upon respondent No.3/owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the appellant/insurance company has been ordered to first pay the compensation and later recover it from respondent No.3. He also submits that the assessment of compensation made by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/owner and driver opposes the impugned award and submits that the insurance company should be held liable to satisfy the award. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 7 8. The order of the Claims Tribunal is to pay and recover. Therefore, the challenge of the appellant/insurance company to the quantum of compensation is not sustainable. The appeal preferred by the insurance company deserves to be dismissed. 9. Thus, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal