1 2025:CGHC:18615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 72 of 2019 1 - Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Purani Basti, Masturi, Police Station Masturi, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. CG-11-BC-2943). 2 - Ramshankar Yadav S/o Shri Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Maveshi Bazar, Balauda, Police Station And Tahsil Balauda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. CG-11-BC-2943). ... Appellants versus 1 - Satya Prakash S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Rajwade Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Banari, Tahsil Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). 2 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Transport Nagar, Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba. Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. CG-11-BC-2943). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.M. Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Arpan Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Praranjpe, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.25 10:45:46 +0530 2 24 / 0 4 / 202 5 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act by the driver and the owner against the award dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 79/2017. 2. As against compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the respondent No.1/claimant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for his injuries in the motor accident on 23.05.2017 at about 9:00 pm, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,37,405/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-11-BC-2943 by its driver Amit Kumar, i.e. appellant No.1 herein; claimant Satyaprakash sustained grievous injuries in the said accident; further, the Tribunal found that there was breach of conditions of the policy as the driver/appellant No.1 did not possess an effective driving licence on the date of the accident, and therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company not liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation and applying the principle of “Pay and Recover” the insurance company was ordered to first satisfy the compensation, and thereafter, the company can recover the same from the appellants herein. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was driven by appellant No. 2 Ramshankar Yadav who had possessed the driving license at that time and not by the appellant No.1 3 Amit Kumar, therefore, the finding of the claims tribunal regarding the breach of policy in absence of driving license is erroneous. He further submits that the accident had happened between two motorcycles of the parties on the main road, their vehicle had been dashed on the front sides, therefore, contributory negligence has been made out against the drivers of both vehicles. But the learned claims tribunal did not appreciate this fact and wrongly exonerated the insurance company from its liability, as well as awarded compensation against the present appellants. Hence, the award passed by the learned claims tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held liable the appellants, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. So far as the contention with regard Amit Kumar is not having driver of the offending vehicle and having driven by Ramshankar Yadav is concerned, in this regard, it is clear from the written statement jointly filed by appellant No.1 and appellant No. 2 that they have not mentioned any where in their pleading that the offending vehicle was driven by Ramshankar Yadav and not by Amit Kumar at the time of accident. This fact has also been corroborated by charge sheet Exs.A-1, 2 and 3 in connection with FIR No. 226/2017 against appellant No.1 Amit Kumar, which was also accepted by appellant No.2 Ramshankar in para 15 of his written statement and in para 6 of his statement. Apart from this, Appellant No.1 Amit Kumar has not examined himself to prove the fact. 4 8. Considering the aforesaid situation, it is clear that the appellants have failed to prove that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-BC-2943 was driven by appellant No.2 Ramshaknar at the time of the accident. Hence, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is not found acceptable in this regard. 9. The next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the motorcycle involved in the accident, in this regard considering the statement of claimant/respondent No.1 (AW-1) who has stated that appellant No.1 Amit Kumar drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner caused the said accident by dashing his motorcycle, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Appellant No.1 Amit Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, has not been examined. The statement of AW-1 remained unrebutted, and his statement has been corroborated by the charge sheet, and there is no evidence on record to show negligence on the part of the claimant/driver of another motorcycle. 10.In view of the above, in the absence of evidence, contributory negligence on the part of the claimant cannot be presumed. Thus, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable in this regard also. 11.Thus, the finding of the claims tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 12.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu