1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 334 of 2019 1 - Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Tara Complex G. E. Road, Power House, P. S. Chhawni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ..........Res. No. 3., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kunwariya Bai Wd/o Late Ranjeet Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ........Claimants., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Sahu S/o Ranjeet Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nageena Sahu D/o Ranjeet Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Diksha Sahu D/o Ranjeet Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Dhanushram Sahu S/o Late Naresh Sahu Aged About 83 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Bisaheen Bai Wd/o Dhanushram Sahu Aged About 78 Years R/o Quarter No. S/5, 7th Battalion, Caf, Line Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. .........Claimants., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Manoj Masih S/o Late Yeshudas Aged About 52 Years R/o Azad Mohalla Ward No. 20, Camp-1, Road No. 18, Dsitrict Durg, Chhattisgarh. .........Driver., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Jaspal Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh R/o Santara Badi, Ward No. 25, Behind Gurudwara, P. S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ..............Owner., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate along with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For respondents No.1,2,3,4 & 6 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.02.2026 2 1. Heard. 2. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.448/2016 dated 27.09.2018 whereby, learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the of Rs.37,14,721/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Shri Ranjeet Sahu in a motor accident and fastened liability with the Insurance Company. 3. The facts in brief are that on 13.08.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., while deceased Ranjeet Sahu was going to Durg from Village Sankra on his Activa bearing registration No.C.G.07/A.X./7006 at the same time, driver of the Car bearing registration No.C.G.08/1090 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the scooty, resultantly, Ranjeet Sahu sustained injuries and succumbed to death during course of treatment. 4. The claimants, who are widow, children and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 47 years and earning Rs.34,575/- per month as deceased was a Head Constable in 14th Battalion. They claimed a sum of Rs.53,93,700/-. 5. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea of false implication of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 6. Mr. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that offending car was not involved in accident and same is evident from FIR as it was registered against unknown vehicle. He would further submit that after 27 days of incident, statement of alleged eyewitness namely Malkeet Singh was recorded by the police and on the basis of said statement, the offending vehicle was seized. He would contend that there is 3 no cogent evidence with regard to involvement of the offending vehicle in accident, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pusty. He would submit that learned Tribunal has considered the submissions advanced by the Insurance Company at length and thereafter, recorded a finding that the vehicle was involved in the said accident and fastened liability with the Insurance Company. He would further submit that though the registration number of the vehicle was not disclosed in the FIR but during course of investigation, police seized the offending car and later on, arrested its driver. He would contend that no complaint was made by the owner of the vehicle before the superior police authority against the registration of FIR and seizure of vehicle. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Admittedly, the deceased met with an accident on 13.08.2016, whereas, FIR was registered on 17.08.2016 against unknown vehicle. The reason for delay has been assigned that Ranjeet Sahu was under treatment and succumbed to injuries on 19.08.2016. A morgue intimation was registered on 19.08.2016 vide Ex.P/5. The offending car was seized by the police on 21.09.2016 and the driver was arrested on 09.09.2016. 10. Malkeet Singh (AW3) deposed that on the date of accident, he was taking meal at Highway Dhaba Anjora and when he heard noise, he came out and noticed that a car has dashed one motorcyclist. He noted down the registration number of car that was C.G.08/1090. In cross-examination, this witness remained consistent. 4 11. The Insurance Company examined Jashpal Singh (NAW1), who admitted the fact that the offending vehicle was borrowed to Manoj Masih, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 12. Mukesh Dewangan (NAW2), Manager of Thakurtola Toll Plaza, stated that there is no entry in record to the effect that the offending vehicle crossed Toll Plaza on the date of accident. 13. This witness was examined on 25.07.2018. This witness specifically stated that they keep entries in computer for a period of one month. 14. The widow of deceased and eyewitness Malkeet Singh categorically stated that Ranjeet Sahu was dashed by driver of the offending car. No complaint was made by the owner of the vehicle against registration of FIR; seizure of vehicle and arrest of driver Manish Masih. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar issue in the matter of Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Other vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 512 held in paras 10 & 11 as under : “10.On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR against Sanjay, driver of the Car. He admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Ex.68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false implication of his vehicle or the driver. 11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.” 16. The witnesses examined by the Insurance Company failed to establish the fact that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident at all. 17. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above, the law laid down by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the matter of Janabai (supra), in my 5 opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 18. It is informed by Mr. Pusty that as 75% of the award amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount with interest within a period of 60 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha