1 MAC No. 2192 of 2019 2026:CGHC:2314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2192 of 2019  Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Shop No. 3, II Floor, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Leelabati Taram W/o Late Yogesh Taram, Aged About 34 Years; 2. Sindhuram Taram S/o Late Chandan Singh Taram, Aged About 67 Years; 3. Smt. Sharda Taram W/o Sindhuram Taram, Aged About 60 Years; All are By Caste Gond, R/o Village Biranpur, Police Station And Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4. Bholaram Sahu S/o Girdhari Lal Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, Caste Teli, R/o Village Bhothli, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 5. Diwakar Awasthi S/o Late S.N. Awasthi, Aged About 53 Years, R/o C/302, Barsana Enclave, Mohba Bazar, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 2192 of 2019 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.05.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 30.10.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Knaker, District North Bastar Knaker, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 82/2017 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of ₹45,21,310/- as compensation along with interest for death of Yogesh Taram. 2. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that the previous year insurance policy of the vehicle was a fake policy and further, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he drove his vehicle rashly and negligently and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 3. None for the claimants though served. 4. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the owner, would submit that the owner is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 3 MAC No. 2192 of 2019 6. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with the present Insurance Company. The plea is taken by the Insurance Company that the previous year insurance policy of the offending vehicle was a fake insurance policy, however, in this regard no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company. Furthermore, though the plea with regard to contributory negligence has been taken by Insurance Company at para 2 of the written statement and in this regard Law Officer – Deepak Soni has been examined. However, Law officer – Deepak Soni is not the eye witness to the accident and except that no other evidence has been led by the Insurance Company in support of its plea of contributory negligence. As such, the Insurance Company has failed to prove its plea of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Yogesh Taram. [See :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Pandey and Others 1 ]. To prove its plea of contributory negligence the Insurance Company should have led the clinching evidence. In that view of the matter, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit 1 2014 (1) C.G.L.J. 270 [MAC No.653/2012; decided on 8.11.2013