1 MAC No. 45 of 2022 2025:CGHC:50395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 45 of 2022  Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-1, Bhutani Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, T.P. Hub Divisional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Vyapar Vihar Road, above Canara Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1.Smt. Rupa Yadav Wd/o Bhaiyalal, Yadav Aged About 37 Years; 2.Rajesh Yadav S/o Late Bhaiyalal, Yadav Aged About 18 Years; 3.Aman Yadav S/o Bhaiyalal Yadav, Aged About 17 Years; 4.Shravan Yadav S/o Late Bhaiyalal Yadav, Aged About 16 Years; 5.Smt. Amrita Bai W/o Late Ramcharan Yadav, aged about 65 years; ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.10.14 10:53:56 +0530 2 MAC No. 45 of 2022 Respondents No.3 & 4 are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Rupa Yadav Respondent No. 1; All above are R/o Village Chata, Post Devada, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Claimants). 6.Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Vrindavan Chaturvedi R/o H.No. 648, Road No. 39, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5 :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 09.10.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 12.10.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.510/2016 by which the application of the claimants for grant of compensation has 3 MAC No. 45 of 2022 been allowed and ₹20,55,000/- along with interest has been awarded to the claimants/dependents of deceased Bhaiyalal Yadav by fastening the liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 2.Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting compensation to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company as the deceased himself was contributory negligent while driving his truck bearing Registration No. CG. No. 07-C-9444 and due to which collision occurred with truck bearing Registration No. CG 07-CA-9267, he suffered injuries and died. He would also submit that the driver has no valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and further the Investigating Officer Lokeshwar (NAW-1) has clearly stated that due to negligent driving of the deceased and other truck driver, accident occurred and also against them, offence was registered in 4 MAC No. 45 of 2022 crime Nos.155/2016 & 154/2016 and due to their death case was closed, therefore, on account of contributory negligence on the part of Bhaiylala Yadav (deceased), 50% amount ought to have been deducted from the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3.Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 & 5, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 5.Admittedly, as per the statement of NAW-1, Lokeshwar, ASI, investigating Officer, offence under Section 304A of the IPC was registered against Bhaiyalal Yadav (deceased) in Crime No.155/2016, who was the driver of truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-C-9444 and also against driver of the other truck bearing Registration 5 MAC No. 45 of 2022 No. CG-07-CA-9267 in Crime No.154/2016, but both the FIRs were closed on account of death of both truck drivers. However, though the appellant / Insurance Company in paragraph No.3 of its written statement has taken a plea that accident occurred due to collision of both the trucks and deceased Bhaiyalal Yadav while driving truck No. CG-07-C-9444 had also committed contributory negligence, but except that no other plea has been taken by the Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence. In order to prove the aforesaid plea, the appellant has examined Investigating Officer NAW-1 Lokeshwar, who had registered the offence under Section 304A of the IPC against Bhaiyalal Yadav bearing Crime No.155/2016 which is said to have been closed vide Ex.D/6C on account of death of Bhaiyalal Yadav, except stating that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of deceased, nothing has been stated by him and no evidence has been brought on record by the appellant even no eye witness has been examined 6 MAC No. 45 of 2022 on behalf of the appellant. However, on behalf of the claimants, eye witness to the accident namely Sanjay Kumar Nishad (PW-2) was examined, who was working as helper in the truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-C-9444, which was driven by Bhaiyalal Yadav (deceased). Sanjay Kumar Nishad, has stated that driver of the other truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-CA-9267, driving it negligently and dashed his truck due to which accident occurred and both the truck drivers died on the spot and he had also suffered injuries. Though some extent of cross examination has been made, but with regard to the aforesaid fact, stated by eye witness Sanjay Kumar Nishad, no cross examination has been made by the Insurance Company/appellant herein. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal at paragraph No. 28 of the impugned award has held that the statement of eye witness Sanjay Kumar Nishad remained uncontroverted to the fact that the driver of truck bearing Registration No. CG- 07-CA-9267 was driving it negligently. 7 MAC No. 45 of 2022 Moreover, no other evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company in support of its plea of contributory negligence except statement of Investigating Officer, who was not the eye witness. As such, the Insurance Company has failed to prove its plea of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Bhaiyalal Yadav. [See :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Pandey and Others 1 ] 6.Furthermore, the Insurance Company has proved that Bhaiyalal Yadav, did not have the valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck and he had only non-transport driving licence i.e. LMV licence. However, the Claims Tribunal has held that merely because deceased driver Bhaiyalal Yadav did not have the valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle, it cannot be held that he had committed contributory negligence unless such evidence is led by the Insurance Company to prove its plea to the extent of contributory negligence, as 1 2014 (1) C.G.L.J. 270 [MAC No.653/2012; decided on 8.11.2013 8 MAC No. 45 of 2022 such, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is correct finding of fact which is based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 7.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit