1 2025:CGHC:13913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 467 of 2022  Rajendra Prasad Mishra S/o Jagdish Prasad Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Bouripara (In Arun Singhs House) Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh Owner And Driver Of The Offending Vehicle). ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Bharat Vishwakarma S/o Late Gupteshwar Vishwakarma Aged About 39 Years Occupation Motor Body Laborer, R/o Khutaheriya, Post Pusaha, Thana Kandi, District Gadawa, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Village Ranpur Khurd (Harijanpara), Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Komal Vishwakarama D/o Bharat Vishwakarma Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bharat Vishwakarma S/o Late Gupteshwar Vishwakarma, Aged About 39 Years, Occupation Motor Body Laborer, R/o Khutaheriya, Post Pusaha, Thana Kandi, District Gadawa, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Village Ranpur Khurd (Harijanpara), Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Babli Vishwakarma D/o Bharat Vishwakarma Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bharat Vishwakarma S/o Late Gupteshwar Vishwakarma, Aged About 39 Years, Occupation Motor Body Laborer, R/o Khutaheriya, Post Pusaha, Thana Kandi, District Gadawa, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Village Ranpur Khurd (Harijanpara), Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramkumar S/o Bharat Vishwakarma Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bharat Vishwakarma S/o Late Gupteshwar Vishwakarma, Aged About 39 Years, Occupation Motor Body Laborer, R/o Khutaheriya, Post Pusaha, Thana Kandi, District Gadawa, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Village Ranpur Khurd (Harijanpara), Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.26 10:26:57 +0530 2 22. 03.2025 1. The appellants have assailed the award passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 183/2019, dated 23.12.2021 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which would be effective from the date of application and liability has been fastened with the owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offending vehicle was in stationary condition and the deceased driving his motorbike rashly and negligently, dashed it from the rear side, but the learned tribunal utterly failed to frame the issue in this regard. He would further submit that the claimants exaggerated the amount of compensation. He would also submit that the quantum of the compensation is on the higher side. He would pray to set-aside the award. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Mishra, counsel appearing for respondents/claimants would submit that the appellant failed to appear in the witness box to prove the contents of the reply. He would further submit that the claimants adduced evidence and proved the fact that the motorbike of the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle. He would also submit that the copy of the charge-sheet filed in the criminal case was also produced before the learned tribunal and it fortifies the evidence led by the claimants. He would contend that the learned tribunal after appreciating the evidence, passed an award in favour of the claimants fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle. He would contend that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 3 5. The claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 65,60,000/- on account of the death of Smt. Asha Devi on 22.06.2019. The claimants depicted their case that on 22.06.2019 while Smt. Asha Devi was going to District Hospital, Ambikapur from Village Ranpur Khurd along with her husband and younger son on a motorcycle, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 12 C 1262, which was being driven by the appellant rashly and negligently, dashed the motorbike, consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. An FIR was lodged and after the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 6. A perusal of the record would show that claimant No.1 Bharat Vishwakarma examined himself as AW/1 and proved the contents of the claim case. Jai Siyaram Vishwakarma examined himself as AW/2 and supported the case of the claimants. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajani Sahoo and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 599, held that the police record can be looked into to determine the question of negligence. The relevant para 8 is reproduced here-in-below:- “8. As regards the reliability of charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.,(2018) 5 SCC 656; 2018 INSC 311, held in paragraph No.27, thus : - “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant 4 leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal”.” 8. The appellant/owner/driver of the vehicle failed to adduce evidence before the learned tribunal. The charge-sheet of Crime No. 381/19 for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304A, 279 of IPC and Sections 146/196, 56/192, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act was produced before the learned criminal Court. 9. In the investigation, the police found that the offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant rashly and negligently and the motorbike of the deceased was dashed from the back side, these are the findings of facts and the appellant failed to prove the contrary. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant