1 / 6 2025:CGHC:23166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 685 of 2020 • The New India Insurance Company Limited Local Branch / Micro Office, Judev Complex, Gamhariya Road, Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suit Legal Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/Non-applicant No.2 versus 1. Smt. Sumitra Devi Wd/o Late Binod Ram Aged About 25 Years 2. Minor Khushbu D/o Late Binod Ram Aged About 6 Years Through Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Sumitra Devi 3. Minor Kiran D/o Late Binod Ram Aged About 3 Years Through Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Sumitra Devi 4. Minor Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Binod Ram Aged About 1 Years Through Claimant No. 1 Mother Namely Smt. Sumitra Devi all are resident of Ambatoli, Post Lodhama, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ----Claimants 5. Ganesh Ram S/o Ramdev Ram R/o Village Chichli, Post Rouni, Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/06/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 15.01.2020 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 04/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants therein/ claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 19,97,800/- as compensation in a motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.10.2018, Binod Ram was at his in-laws' village Chichli. After taking food when he was going towards the Shiv temple walking on the side of the road, a tractor bearing registration number CG 15 DB-9689, driven by its driver-cum-owner Ganesh Ram negligently, hit Binod Ram from behind. In the accident, Binod Ram fell on the road and the tractor overturned upon him, due to which Binod Ram suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The driver of the tractor jumped off the tractor and ran away. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants who are widow and children of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 30,25,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy young man of 28 years. He was doing the work of a mason and earning ₹ 10,000 per month. 4. Respondent No. 5/ Non-applicant No. 1 -driver and owner of the tractor submitted his reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the application submitted by the applicants/claimants is based on false and fabricated grounds. The application has been made with the intention of obtaining excessive compensation which deserves to be rejected as it has been submitted without any supporting documentary evidence. The applicants have not submitted supporting documents regarding the income of the deceased. The alleged offending tractor was insured with non-applicant No. 2 and 3 / 6 therefore compensation if any is awarded, non-applicant 2- insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident deceased himself was driving the tractor, because of it the accident occurred. On the date of accident, the tractor was being driven in contravention of the provisions under Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of insurance policy because the driver who was driving the tractor did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and also valid fitness certificate. The applicants have not submitted any document regarding the income and age of the deceased. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Binod Ram died because of grievous injuries suffered due to accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of tractor by non-applicant 1/ Respondent No. 5. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 19,97,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal erroneously allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 overlooking the contents of Ext. A-1, copy of F.I.R., from which it is apparent that the deceased while travelling on the tractor met with an accident, came under the tractor and succumbed to the accidental injuries suffered by him. It is also contended that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any amount of compensation, as such their claim application is to be dismissed. Death of deceased is on account of his own negligence. He contended that the claimants themselves produced the copy of F.I.R. as 4 / 6 Ext. A-1 and therefore the contents of F.I.R. are to be read into even if the author of F.I.R. was not examined by the claimants/ non-applicants. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rattani and others reported in (2009) 1 T.A.C. 420; 2009 (2) SCC 75. 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would further submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence has rightly recorded a finding that the deceased Binod Ram suffered motor accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1 driver of the offending tractor and accordingly has computed the amount of compensation in favour of claimants/ Respondents No. 1 to 4 which is strictly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case available on record. 10. Claimants in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 have specifically pleaded that the deceased Binod Ram suffered accidental injuries due to rash and negligence driving of the offending tractor by non- applicant No. 1-Ganesh Ram. Copy of F.I.R. might have been shown to prove that the death of Binod Ram is on account of motor vehicle accidental injuries suffered but whether at the time of accident deceased himself was driving the tractor or it was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 is to be proved by placing cogent and reliable piece of evidence before the Claims Tribunal which is to be considered and decided based on the pleadings of claim application filed by the claimants as also pleadings made in the reply by non- applicants therein. 11. Merely the content of document like F.I.R. available in record in itself will not be sufficient to accept the same in its entirety without there being any other clinching piece of evidence in the case. The lodger of F.I.R. is AW-2, he is 5 / 6 eye witness to the accident, in his evidence he categorically stated that the deceased Binod Ram was dashed by the tractor driven by non-applicant No. 1 from its back due to which deceased fell into the ditch on the side of the road and tractor also fell upon the deceased. In cross-examination he has made submission that the F.I.R. was not written according to his complaint. Ld. counsel for the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal has not put specific query in this regard to this witness that he is making false statement and is contrary to the contents of F.I.R. which is lodged by him. 12. From reading the entire evidence in light of claim application, it is apparent that this witness, AW-2, has supported the pleadings made in the application being eye-witness. From the F.I.R. also, it is appearing that the accident of offending tractor was witnessed by this witness, however, before the Claims Tribunal he has stated the manner of accident and also stated that the manner of accident in the F.I.R. has wrongly been mentioned. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeshwari & ors. decided in Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2021 on 01.10.2021, while considering the admissibility of the F.I.R. in evidence before the Claims Tribunal has observed a under: “8. … 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 eye–witness. 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 has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. ...” 13. The decision relied upon by the counsel for appellant in the case of Rattani (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the question as to whether the the burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record 6 / 6 so as to enable a Court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lay would still be liable to produce direct evidence to establish that the deceased and the injured passengers were gratuitous passengers. In the said case it is distinguishable on the facts. There was pleadings that the deceased was travelling as Barati in Tata- 407 being driven by Respondent No. 1 therein and they were returning after attending the marriage function from village Jharli to village Kusumbi. In the said facts of the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an admission made in the pleadings, as is well-known, is admissible in evidence proprio vigore. 14. Considering the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chamundeshwari (supra) and the evidence available in record of the case at hand, I am of the view that the claimants have filed claim application and submitted copy of F.I.R. only to prove the fact of motor accidental death of deceased Binod Ram. However, AW-2 who is logder of F.I.R. has disputed the contents of F.I.R. and therefore in the facts of the case, Claims Tribunal is justified in accepting the pleading made in the claim application suported by oral evidence for passing the impugned award, allowing the application and computed the amount of compensation in favour of claimants. 15. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed buy the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn