Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 17.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Appellants: (i) Sushila Bhoi (mother, natural guardian) and her minor children Akash, Barsa, Janhvi, Nisha; (ii) Chandramani Bhoi, Malti Bhoi and son Raju Bhoi – all residents of Village Kukripali, Bhandarpur, District Bargarh, Odisha. (iii) ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited (insurer of vehicle No. C.G.04 LN/3276).
  • Respondents: (i) Mohd. Sheikh Hussain (driver of vehicle No. C.G.04 LN/3276); (ii) D.P. Bishal (owner of the same vehicle).
  • Nature of Proceedings: Two appeals were clubbed together. MAC No. 1902 of 2018 was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund. MAC No. 149 of 2019 was filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking exemption from liability.
  • Background: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had originally awarded a total compensation of ₹10,37,680 to the claimants. It then deducted 25 % (₹2,59,420) on the ground of contributory negligence because three persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, leaving a net award of ₹7,78,260 plus interest.
  • Key Contentions:
  • The insurer, through counsel Mr. Sourabh Gupta, argued that the actual driver was the owner’s son, Ritendra Bishal, not Mohd. Sheikh Hussain, and therefore the insurer should be exempt from liability.
  • The claimants, represented by Mr. Sunil Sahu, contended that the 25 % deduction was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Siddique & another v. National Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2020 SC 520), which disallows such a deduction merely because multiple passengers were present.
  • The driver’s counsel, Mr. Sunil Verma, maintained that the driver should not be held liable for compensation.

Court’s Reasoning

  • Regarding the insurer’s appeal, the Court noted that the insurer’s sole witness (DW‑1, Sunil Komdekar) merely “got to know” that the owner’s son was driving, without any corroborating examination or clear source of information. The Tribunal’s observation in paragraph 14 that the alleged driver was not examined was upheld, leading the Court to find no merit in the insurer’s claim and to dismiss the appeal.
  • Concerning the claimants’ appeal, the Court held that the Tribunal’s deduction of 25 % for contributory negligence was inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedent Mohammed Siddique. Consequently, the deduction was set aside, and the claimants were entitled to the full pre‑deduction amount of ₹10,37,680. The Court clarified that all other directions in the impugned award remain applicable to the enhanced amount.

Final Outcome

  • The insurer’s appeal (MAC No. 149 of 2019) is dismissed.
  • The claimants’ appeal (MAC No. 1902 of 2018) is allowed in part; the 25 % deduction is removed, and the compensation is restored to ₹10,37,680.
  • All other directions contained in the original award continue to apply to the enhanced compensation.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Liability