1 / 8 2025:CGHC:34889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1242 of 2024 1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manger, Natraj 301 Of Express Highway And Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai (MH) (Non Applicant No. 2) ... Appellant versus 1. Manjubai Verma Wd/o Late Shri Gendlal Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhuneshwar Verma S/o Late Shri Gendlal Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3. Ku. Thaneshwari Verma D/o Late Shri Gendlal Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Kameshwar Verma S/o Late Shri Gendlal Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jogi Dalli, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Mohanlal Janghel S/o Punaram Janghel Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Doujari, Thana Gandai, Distt - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner/driver) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shubham Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 22/7/2025 1. Appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 / 8 short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.143/2022. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- under various heads, against death of Gendlal Verma in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow and children of deceased, on 13.12.2021 when said Gendlal Verma was going to Gandai from village Jogidalli, one motorcycle bearing registration mark CG07-AJ-3115, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed Gendlal Verma as a result he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was further pleaded by claimants that on the date of accident, deceased was 55 years old, he was working in Jila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Gandai and getting monthly salary of Rs.86,528/-. Deceased was also deriving income from 06 acre agriculture land which he received in family partition. Claimants were dependent on the income of deceased and due to his sudden demise, they suffered loss of income. 3. Non-applicant No.1, driver-cum-owner of offending motorcycle filed reply to claim application pleading that son of deceased was granted appointment on compassionate ground; the widow of deceased was getting family pension and even they are carrying out agriculture activities and hence, they are not entitled to get compensation. At the time 3 / 8 of accident non-applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 and therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimants then insurance company will be liable to pay the same. 4. Non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply denying the averments made in claim application including occupation of deceased and income therefrom. It was pleaded that deceased was riding motorcycle in wrong direction that too without wearing helmet and as such, the principle of contributory negligence attracts in the present case. Driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; there was no element of contributory negligence or breach of any of the conditions of insurance policy while plying offending vehicle on road. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.48,06,351/- and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 4 / 8 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the claimants failed to prove income of deceased as per law. He next contended that present is the case of head-on collusion between two vehicles and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have held that it was a case of contributory negligence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would oppose submissions made by learned counsel for appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 9. So far as first submission of learned counsel for appellant that the claimants failed to prove income of deceased is concerned, the claimants in order to prove occupation and income of deceased produced his salary slip and also examiend one Dipak Kumar as AW-2 who was Branch Manager of Zila Shahkari Maryadit Bank, Gandai where the deceased was employed. This witness has stated in his evidence that deceased was posted as Field Officer (Surveyor) in Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Gandai and his salary slip exhibited as Ex.P-20 to Ex.P-22 are issued from Chhuikhadan branch and it bears signature of Branch Manager. This witness also stated about gross income of deceased and deductions therefrom. He stated that basic salary, dearness allowance, HRA, Medical Allowance of 5 / 8 deceased was Rs.36,050/-, 46,704/-, 2524/-, 70/- and 550/- (total Rs.86528/-). Thus, from the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by claimants, it is clear that they have duly proved income of deceased as Rs.86,528/- on the date of accident. Hence, submission of learned counsel for appellant that claimants failed to prove income of the deceased is not sustainable and it is repelled. 10. Submission of learned counsel for appellant that as there was head on collusion between two motorcycles, the deceased was also contributory negligent, is not acceptable. Appellant has not led any evidence to prove contributory negligence as pleaded in reply to claim application. At this stage learned counsel for appellant would submit that in the documents of criminal case registered by police against driver of offending vehicle, which are filed by claimants in support of their claim, in particular spot map Ex.P-3 prepared by police would show that accident was on the middle of the road. 11. In case of Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence has observed that the spot map before the Claims Tribunal only would not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion and could decide the issue of contributory negligence. It was held thus: 6 / 8 “20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” 12. In case of Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695 Hon’ble Supreme Court again while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence and held thus: “17. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded the erroneous finding by placing strong reliance upon the charge- sheet, Ext. 1 without considering the fact that the criminal case was abated against the deceased and further has made observation in the judgment that the appellants had not produced the FIR. Therefore, it has held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver in 7 / 8 causing accident. The Tribunal ought to have seen that non-production of FIR has no consequence for the reason that charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver for the offences punishable under section 179 read with Section 302 IPC read with the provisions of the MV Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not choose to examine either the driver of the truck or any other independent eyewitness to prove the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout on account of which the accident took place as he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the charge-shhet, Ext. 1 which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on Issue 1.” 13. Considering the aforementioned facts and decisions as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal justified in in recording a finding in Para-10 of its award that the contributory negligence is not found proved on the part of the deceased. The same is hereby affirmed. 8 / 8 14. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substance in the appeal filed by appellant Insurance Company, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/