1 2025:CGHC:27945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 170 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of L I C Building, (Wrongly Mention behind) Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants. versus 1 - Smt. Preeti Singh W/o Tejendra Singh Thakur (Rajput) Aged About 29 Years 2 - Jai Prakash Singh Thakur (Rajput) S/o Late Chandrika Singh Aged About 65 Years 3 - Smt. Sarswati Singh W/o Jai Prakash Singh Thakur (Rajput) Aged About 58 Years All are R/o Village Maraud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 4 - Chintaram Sahu S/o Mehatruram Aged About 43 Years R/o Koliyari, Post Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lokeshwar Sahu S/o Jodhanram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mura, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 228 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company 2nd Floor Simaran Tower ,in Front Of Lic Building (Wrongly Mention As Behind ) Pandri , Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ankit Giri Goswami S/o Hemant Giri Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Maraud, post Maraud ,tahsil Kurud ,district Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ) 2 - Chintaram Sahu S/o Mehatruram Aged About 43 Years Caste Teli , R/o. Koliyari Post Bhakhara ,tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.(Driver) 3 - Lokeshwar Sahu S/o Jodhanram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mura ,post Darba ,tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.(Owner) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Res.No.1 to 3 (In MAC No.170/19) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate & Res. No.1 in MAC No.228 of 2019) Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 26/06/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance company has filed these appeals against the impugned award dated 07.09.2018, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurud, District - Dhamtari in Claims Case No.98 of 2017 and Claim Case No.96 of 2017. 2. As both the appeals are arising out of the same accident, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order., 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.02.2017, Ankit Giri Goswami was travelling in a new sold scooty along with his friend Tejender Singh Thakur and returning back from Rajim Mela to village Maroud when they reached near turning of village Dongitarai, vehicle Tata Pickup bearing No.C.G.-04-LD-1047 dashed the scooty driven by Ankit Giri Goswami, in which, both the riders suffered grievous injuries. Tejender Singh Thakur died on account of the head injury suffered by him. Ankit Giri Goswami also sustained severe injuries and he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Abhanpur and thereafter to Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Incident was reported to the concerned police station based upon which aforementioned crime was registered. Legal representative of the 3 deceased Tejender Singh Thakur filed claim case bearing Claim Case No.98 of 2017 and injured Ankit Giri Goswami also filed Claim Case No.97/2017 seeking compensation on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal allowed both the claim application in part, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant/Insurance Company. It is these awards, which are challenged in these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that these appeals are filed primarily on two grounds that the learned Clams Tribunal failed to consider the fact that offending vehicle has been implanted. According to the postmortem report, the initial report is against the unknown tractor and not against the pickup vehicle, therefore, the appellant who is the insurer of the offending vehicle cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has though framed the issue with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooty, Ankit Giri Goswami, however, it has been erroneously decided against the appellant/Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that from the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that report is lodged against the offending vheicle i.e. Tata Pickup, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the offending vehicle is implanted is not correct. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the grounds of contributory negligence raised by the Insurance Company, however, the Insurance Company failed to prove 4 the same, therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in holding that contributory negligence was not found to be proved. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that in the postmortem report, there is mention of involvement of unknown tractor. Perusal of part of the Ex.P-8 in claim case No.98 of 2017 filed by the legal representative of the deceased Tejender Singh Thakur would show that it also includes the document of application for postmortem, in the said document there is mention of accident by unknown tractor, however, the time, which is mentioned of sending the body for postmortem 25.02.2017 at 7.55 am. Ex.P-7 is document of the information of death which is of same date i.e. 25.02.2017 mentioning time of accident as 3.40 AM, time of information as at 5.10 AM, however, there is no such mention of vehicle involved in the accident i.e. unknown tractor. Documents of postmortem was available, however, the appellant/Insurance Company has not examined the persons who has written the application for postmortem. Merely production of the documents will not be sufficient to prove the fact/contents mentioned therein. It is required to be proved in accordance with law. The appellant/Insurance Company has not examined the officer under whose signature document has been forwarded. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident is not sustainable and it is repelled. 5 9. In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer, reported in 2005 (1) WN 91, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that “In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of FIR in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of FIR and held as under: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal 6 has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.” 11. With regard to the second grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooty is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has framed issue No.2 on the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Except the pleadings in the reply to the claim application, the appellant/Insurance Company has not produced any witness or has brought any admissible piece of evidence in proof of ground of contributory negligence. Learned Claims Tribunal has considered the contents of the document (Ex.P- 3), the spot map and have recorded a finding that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle pickup. 12. The issue of contributory negligence has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 166 where the Supreme Court has held thus:- “20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and their direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can 7 be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” 13. In another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in the matter of Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra (2013) 10 SCC 695, it was held thus:- “17. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded the erroneous finding by placing strong reliance upon the charge- sheet, Ext. 1 without considering the fact that the criminal case was abated against the deceased and further has made observation in the judgment that the appellants had not produced the FIR. Therefore, it has held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver in causing accident. The Tribunal ought to have seen the non-production of FIR has no consequence for the reason that charge- sheet was filed against the truck driver for the offences punishable under Section 279 read with Section 304-A of IPC read with the provisions of the MV Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not choose to examine either the driver of the truck or any other independent eyewitness to prove the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout on account of which the accident took place as he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the Tribunal, the 8 Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the charge-sheet, Ext. 1 in which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross- examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on Issue No. 1.” 14. For the foregoing discussions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle pickup. Except the aforementioned two grounds, no other ground is raised by the appellant/Insurance Company. 15. For the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly both the appeals being sans merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram