1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 438 of 2019 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. 102 Indira Commercial Complex Behind Natraj Hotel T.P. Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh Through Legal Officer, Bjaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh..............(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Minor Gourav Kant Sahu S/o Late Sashikant Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor They Are Through Their Guardian (Grandfather) Murit Ram Sahu, R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Garv Kant Sahu S/o Late Sashikant Sahu 2 1/2 Years R/o Minor They Are Through Their Guardian (Grandfather) Murit Ram Sahu, R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Murit Ram Sahu S/o Late Chamru Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Lata Sahu W/o Muritram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ravikant Sahu S/o Murit Ram Sahu R/o Hig 15 Behind Niharika Talkies M.P. Nagar Kosabadi Korba, P.S. Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of Car), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba Tehsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh............(Insurer Of Car), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Lakhan Das Manikpuri S/o Sanand Das Manikpuri R/o Village Haranmundi Pali District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of Truck), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 8 - Ganpat Ram Sinha R/o Through Devendra Singh Plot No. 191 T.P. Nagar Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of Truck), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 16.04.2026 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) the appellant- Insurance Company is questioning award dated 29.10.2018, whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, but fastened the liability to pay compensation of Rs.21,40,712/- to the claimants upon the appellant- Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that: (i) there is no evidence available on record to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent in parking the vehicle without having proper indicator, as no offence has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased himself was fully negligent in the accident in question; (ii) since the deceased used to run a snacks hotel, which is still running by his elder brother, the compensation awarded is on the higher side and (iii) owner of the offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident. Learned counsel would rely upon Amrit Paul Singh and 3 another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 in support of his submissions. As such, for the aforesaid reasons, the insurance company is liable to be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.06 supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The first argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle has parked the vehicle side of the road and there is no evidence that it was parked without giving proper indicator/showing the parking of the vehicle, as the incident occurred in night at about 1:30 to 2:00 AM on 07.06.2011. However, in this regard Witness No.02- Bhagvat Prasad Rathore has stated that while parking the offending vehicle the driver did not switch on the parking light and, therefore, accident occurred, as due to which, the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling dashed with the offending vehicle. Though in cross-examination, in Para-6, it is stated that he reached immediately after 2-3 minutes, but merely because he reached after 2-3 minutes of the incident, it could not be held that he is the eye-witness of the incident. Further, the owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined and the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 4 prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent in parking the vehicle without having proper indicator in switch on condition, as the accident occurred in midnight. As such, for the aforesaid reasons the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in parking the vehicle, due to which, accident in question took place. Thus, the first argument raised on behalf of the appellant is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 6. The second argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the deceased used to run a snacks hotel, which is still being running by his elder brother, therefore, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. However, brother of the deceased is not a claimant in the present matter, the claimants are wife (now dead), two sons, mother and father of the deceased. Merely because the hotel which the deceased used to run during his lifetime is still being run by his elder brother, it cannot be a ground for not granting compensation to the claimants or reducing the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the claimants under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, this argument raised on behalf of the appellant is also liable to be and is hereby rejected. 7. The last argument that has been raised by the appellant is that the owner of the offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that the insurance company did not lead any evidence to demonstrate the said fact that the owner of the 5 offending vehicle (truck) was not having valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident and, in absence of which, the said ground is also liable to be and is hereby rejected. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference of this Court in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. So far as the judgment of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) relied by the appellant is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable under the facts of the preset case and cannot be made applicable. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if