1 MAC No. 154 of 2022 2025:CGHC:33720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 154 of 2022 1. Smt. Manimala W/o Late Manish Kumar Madhavan, aged about 39 years, 2. Ku. Megha Manish D/o Late Manish Kumar Madhavan, aged about 14 years (minor) through natural guardian mother Smt. Manimala, Both are R/o House No. 420/8/15, Street 6, Ashish Nagar West, in front of Kalpkanchan Apartment, Risali, P.S. Newai, Tahsil and District Durg-Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Dughdish Pandey @ Kishor Kumar Pandey, aged about 48 years, R/o Qr. No. 16B, Street 37, Sector 4, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilai, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of offending vehicle). 2. Smt. Ranju Diwan W/o Late K.K. Diwan, R/o Qtr. No. 8B, Street 31, Sector 10, Bhilai, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of offending vehicle). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 15:00:09 +0530 2 MAC No. 154 of 2022 3. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office Paras Complex, in front of State Bank of India, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of vehicle). … Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellants :- Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/07/2025 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the “MV Act”) is directed against the impugned order and award dated 30.11.2021 passed in MACT Case No.388/2019 (Smt. Manimala & anr. v. Dugdish Pandey @ Kishor Kumar Pandey and ors.) by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (for brevity the “AMACT”) by which claim application filed by the claimants/ appellants herein has been dismissed as the claimants / appellants have failed to establish that the death of Manish Kumar Madhavan caused by the rash and negligence driving of 3 MAC No. 154 of 2022 offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 which was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. 2. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants herein, would submit that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the claim application of the appellants as the FIR and other relevant documents were filed vide Exs. P/1 to Ex.P /18, but the learned AMACT did not look into the said documents and dismissed the claim of the appellants herein as the eye witness was not examined, therefore, the impugned judgment with regard to finding of issue No.1, i.e. death of Manish Kumar Madhavan was caused by the rash and negligence driving of non-applicant No.1, may be set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned AMACT for examining afresh and for passing fresh order. 3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant herein and support the impugned order. 4 MAC No. 154 of 2022 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. True, it is that claim application of the appellants has been dismissed holding that eye witness has not been examined and also there is delay in lodging the FIR ignoring the fact the charge-sheet against the non- applicant No.1 was filed for being trial offence under Section 304A of the IPC and the other relevant documents vide Exs.P/1 to P/18 were filed demonstrating that respondent No.1 herein was driving the vehicle in question in rash and negligent manner leading to death of Manish Kumar Madhavan, but the learned AMACT did not look into the evidences properly and held that there is delay in lodging the FIR and recorded its finding at paragraph No.24 which states as under:- 24. In the light of aforesaid verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in respect to material available in record, it appears that certain doubts (following) must have to prove beyond doubt 5 MAC No. 154 of 2022 from the end of claimant. These are delay in FIR has not explained logically, seizure of offending vehicle after a long delay of one & half year even when no one has stated anything about involvement of offending vehicle in commission of questioned accident,non-examination of eye witness of accidental case, content of FIR etc. which shows that deceased Manish Kumar Madhavan has fallen by himself from his motor cycle and sustain injury etc. These facts have to be cleared by way of presenting oral and documentary evidence but said burden has not been discharged by claimant. The documents produced by either party in matter as well as not objected by either end are sufficient to draw aforesaid conclusion, which exists within the contents of produced documents. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice pertinent judgment relating to approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding the claims case under Section 166 of the MV Act laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another 1 which states as under:- 21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT 1 (2021) 1 SCC 171 6 MAC No. 154 of 2022 claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. 22. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] wherein this Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 650, para 7) “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] .)” (emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anita Sharma (supra) the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned AMACT 7 MAC No. 154 of 2022 concerned for deciding the appellants’ claim application on the question of rash and negligence driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 owned by non- applicant No.2, without being prejudice by its earlier order dated 30.11.2021. The parties are at liberty to produce additional evidence. The learned AMACT, Durg is directed to decide the claim application of the appellants within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after appreciating all the evidences. 8. A copy of this order along with the original records of the case be transmitted to the learned AMACT, Durg immediately for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit