The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that insurance companies cannot raise defences before the appellate court which were not pleaded before the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment upholds settled precedent, confirms existing procedural law, and remains binding authority for all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh in the context of motor vehicle accident claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1416/2023 of BRANCH MANAGER Vs CHANDRAKALI |
| CNR | CGHC010217522023 |
| Date of Registration | 17-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the insurance company can raise new grounds before the appellate court which were not pleaded in their written statement before the Claims Tribunal. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that grounds not taken in the written statement before the Claims Tribunal cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time on appeal. The court found that the insurance company neither pleaded the issues of excessive compensation or eligibility of the married daughter nor dispute regarding engine number in their statements before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the appellate court did not find merit in the grounds raised. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The insurance company appealed the Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs. 10,30,000/- compensation, contending that the married daughter was not entitled and disputing the engine number on the insurance policy. Both grounds were not raised before the Tribunal in their written statement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that defences or grounds not pleaded in the insurer’s written statement before the Claims Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time in appeal.
- Lawyers for insurance companies must ensure that all relevant objections and grounds are clearly stated before the Claims Tribunal.
- Appellate courts will not entertain new factual or legal grounds in motor accident claim appeals if they were not previously pleaded.
- The judgment underscores strict adherence to procedural fairness in motor accident compensation litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the written statement filed by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal and found that neither of the two grounds raised in appeal (married daughter’s entitlement and engine number discrepancy) had been pleaded at the trial stage.
- The court applied the principle that parties cannot take new grounds before the appellate court if these were not pleaded before the trial court or Claims Tribunal.
- Upon reviewing the record, the court found no merit in the appellant insurer’s submissions and affirmed the award made by the Claims Tribunal.
- As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company):
- Argued that the Claims Tribunal awarded excessive compensation.
- Contended that the married daughter (respondent no. 4) was not entitled to compensation.
- Alleged a discrepancy in the engine number between the registration certificate (RC) and the insurance policy, seeking exoneration from liability.
Respondents No. 5 & 6 (Driver & Owner):
- Submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper and required no interference.
Factual Background
The case arises from a fatal motor accident resulting in the death of Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Dehre. The family of the deceased filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs. 10,30,000/- as compensation, holding the insurance company liable. The insurer appealed against the award, raising issues regarding excess compensation and disputing the entitlement of a married daughter and the relevant engine number on the insurance policy, although these points were not pleaded before the Tribunal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court’s analysis was under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 concerning appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals.
- Emphasized adherence to the rule that defences not raised before the Claims Tribunal cannot be advanced for the first time in the appellate court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed the established principle that new grounds cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal.