1 / 8 2025:CGHC:29897 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1009 of 2020 • Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited G.E. Plaza Airport Road Yarwada Pune, District Pune (Maharashtra) (Insurer) --- Appellant/Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Smt. Urmila Bai W/o Mesoram Bandhekar 2. Januk Bandhekar S/o Ghunari Bandhekar, Aged About 73 Years Both are R/o Village Dhobghatti, P.S. Pandriya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ---applicants/ claimants 3. Mohammad Khanif Khan S/o Mohd. Yaseem Khan, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Manjholi, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh...............Driver (non-applicant No.1) 4. Shrawan Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Rajjuram Chandravanshi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Manjholi, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandriya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh...............Owner (non-applicant No.2) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/07/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 17.02.2020 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 76/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants therein/ claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,05,600/- as compensation in a fatal accident case and fastened liability upon non-applicants 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.06.2018 at about 8:00 a.m. Mesoram Bandhekar along with his wife Urmila Bai went to Manjholi Khar agricultural field to plough it by a tractor No. CG 09/JE-7327 (henceforth “offending tractor”) owned by non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 3 was driving the tractor and ploughing the field, while doing so, he drove the tractor negligently and rashly and hit Mesoram Bandhekar, who was working on the side of the field on the river bank, and caused accident. In the said accident, offending tractor fell onto Mesoram Bandhekar, due to which Mesoram got seriously injured and died on the spot. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ claimants who are widow and father of deceased Mesoram filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 15,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was 54 years able bodied person. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was working as Mason and also doing agricultural activities on his field and earning ₹ 500 per day to support himself and his family. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/ Respondents No. 3 & 4 filed their joint reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that while turning the tractor in the field, deceased Mesoram came in front of the tractor and in an attempt to save him accident occurred and he died. Non-applicant No. 1 was not negligent while driving and ploughing the field, accident occurred due to own negligence of deceased. 3 / 8 5. Appellant- Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply, denying the pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the deceased himself was negligent in the accident. It is also stated that the offending tractor was being driven in violation of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending tractor on the date of accident was not having valid and effective driving license. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Mesoram Bandhekar died because of grievous injuries suffered in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending tractor by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,05,600/- 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 learned Claims Tribunal erred in not accepting the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the insurance company showing that on the date of accident, deceased himself was driving the offending tractor, came under it and succumbed to the injuries. Insurance Company has submitted copy of newspaper clip in this regard, wherein the news is published describing the manner, in which the accident occurred. He next contended that in the evidence of NAW-3-1 ie., the Law Officer of the insurance company also it has come that the deceased being the driver of offending tractor at the time of accident could not fall within the category of third party. He also pointed out the evidence of NAW-3-2, Shri Sanat Kshatri, Investigator of the Insurance company. He lastly contended that the appellant-Insurance company in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal has submitted an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC for production of license, however, copy of license has not been produced either by the owner, driver 4 / 8 of the vehicle. Upon putting query to the counsel for appellant-Insurance Company fairly submitted that the application submitted by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC is with regard to production of license of the deceased. He also pointed out that the own damage claim submitted by the owner of the offending tractor was rejected on the ground that the driver of the offending tractor on the date of accident was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. 8. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submit that the the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, hence, it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. So far as the first ground raised by the counsel for appellant-Insurance Company that it is the case of self negligence as the deceased on the date of accident was driving the offending tractor is concerned, perusal of pleadings made in the claim application would show that the claimants have pleaded the facts of accident mentioning that at the time of accident Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 1 while driving the offending tractor dashed the deceased Mesoram who was working in the agricultural field. From the pleadings, it is appearing that the deceased was not driving the offending tractor at the time of accident. Claimants have examined Smt. Urmila Bai as AW-1 in support of the pleadings made in the claim application. 11. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance company in its evidence has produced copy of driving license of Mohd. Khanif Khan as Ext. D1-C, who has been shown to be driver of the offending tractor at the time of accident, in the claim application. License was issued on 15.07.2008 for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and it was valid till 13.07.2028 whereas the date of accident is 17.06.2018. The person holding the license of authorising him to drive LMV 5 / 8 can drive the Light Goods Vehicle and even it is not the ground raised by the counsel for appellant-insurance company that Mohd. Khanif Khan was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending tractor. Appellant-insurance company has also submitted letter written to the owner of the vehicle ie., non-applicant No. 2 dated 25.09.2018 seeking clarification mentioning therein that in the own damage claim, correct facts have not been pleaded and it has wrongly been shown that Mohd. Khanif Khan (non- applicant no. 1) was driving the offending tractor at the time of loss/ damage to the vehicle. Copy of investigation report is also filed as Ext. D-8. In the report, it only mentions about the news published in the daily newspaper Nai Duniya dated 18.06.2018. The Investigator, Shri Sanat Kshatri, NAW-3-2, in his evidence has stated that his report is based on the news article published in the daily newspaper dated 18.06.2018. He also admitted that during course of investigation, he has not recorded statement of any person, however, tried to clarified that he has not recorded any written statement or any person, took oral statement and further that except copy of news published in newspaper, he has not produced any other document. It is a well settled principle of law that news paper clip cannot be read as evidence by which an allegation of fact can be proved. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1988) 3 SCC 319 has held as under: “25. As to the first, the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was entitled to tender the newspaper report from the Indian Express of the 29th and the regional newspapers of the 30th along with his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the accused at the stage of their defence in denial of the charge had summoned the editors of Tamil dailies Malai Murasu and Makkal Kural and the news reporters of the Indian Express and Dina Thanthi to prove the contents of the facts stated in the news item but they dispensed with their examination on the date fixed for the defence evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of 6 / 8 hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from Appellant 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238 : (1969) 3 SCR 603 : AIR 1969 SC 1201] . There the question arose whether Shri George Fernandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said: (SCC p. 261, para 47) “A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.” We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of Appellant 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged.” 7 / 8 12. The appellant-Insurance Company though relied upon the contents of morgue intimation also, apart from the news published in the newspaper, however, has not examined Investigating Officer of the police department or any other police official or informer. Considering entirety of the facts of the case brought on record by the appellant-insurance company which is primarily based on the news published in the newspaper cannot be accepted to be admissible evidence. The documents of the criminal case is also not having evidentary value unless and until it is corroborated with the statement of person who gave information or lodged report or who has recorded the information so given by any person. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer reported in 2006 ACJ 803 while dealing with the issue whether the documents of criminal case merely by its production will be admissible in evidence and held thus: “12. In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 13. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 3 is examined as NAW-1-1 before the Claims Tribunal to prove the license and other documents. This witness was cross-examined by the counsel representing non-applicant No. 3/Insurance company, however, no such question has been posed to him that at the time of accident he was not driving the offending tractor. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the plea of insurance company that at the time of accident deceased himself was driving the offending tractor and met with an accident. 8 / 8 15. So far as the second submission made by learned counsel for appellant of non-production of license in view of specific prayer made in application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC is concerned, perusal of application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC would show that in the application non-applicant No. 3/ applicant prayed for production of license from claimant, of late Mesoram. In the claim application driver of the offending tractor is mentioned as Mohd. Khanif Khan. Licence of non-applicant No. 1 driver Mohd. Khanif Khan was produced before Claims Tribunal. Non-applicant No. 1, Mohd. Khanif Khan driver of the offending tractor was examined before the Tribunal as NAW-1-1, who proved his licence as Ext. D-1. No question is posed to this witness in cross-examination that on the date of accident he was not driving the offending vehicle. In view of evidence available on record ie., the copy of license marked as Ext. D1-C and further evidence of NAW-1-1, the said submission of counsel for appellant that at the time of accident deceased was driving the offending vehicle are having no legs to stand being contrary to the evidence available on record, hence, it is repelled. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn