BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, vs SMT. SUSHILA YADAV Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR, ,SATYENDRA SRIVAS,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI — MAC/1218/2025
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010218022025
Filing Number
MAC/12774/2025
Filing Date
05-Jun-2025
Registration No
MAC/1218/2025
Registration Date
13-Jun-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
COMPENSATION MATTERS ( 12 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO APPEALS FILED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. ( 1205 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 22-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Adv. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
-
1.SMT. SUSHILA YADAV Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR, ,SATYENDRA SRIVAS,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI
-
2.Shyam Choubey
-
3.Pravir Mohan Singh
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF
Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in favor of claimant Sushila Yadav. The court rejected the condonation application for a 425-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the administrative explanation insufficient, and further held the appeal itself lacked merit as no witnesses were examined to support the insurer's plea regarding vehicle permit and fitness defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Jun-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
17-Jun-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
-
05-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. MAC/1218/2025
Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in favor of claimant Sushila Yadav. The court rejected the condonation application for a 425-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the administrative explanation insufficient, and further held the appeal itself lacked merit as no witnesses were examined to support the insurer's plea regarding vehicle permit and fitness defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts