1 / 5 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1023 of 2019 1. Ramprasad S/o Jhagarsai Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Singhaur, Post, Police And Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2. Awadh Singh S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner, R/o Village- Daser, Post, Police And Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 versus 1. Ramnande S/o Kevla Aged About 27 Years 2. Ku. Himanshi D/o Ramnande Aged About 3 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Father, Ramnande S/o Kevla, 3. Ku. Shivanshi D/o Ramnande Aged About 3 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Father, Ramnande S/o Kevla, 4. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnande Aged About 1 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Father, Ramnande S/o Kevla, R/o Village- Anandpur, Post, Police and Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ----Claimants 5. The Branch Manager Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.---Non- applicant No. 3 --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Kaushal Yadadv, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 21/07/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 1. Appellants-driver and owner have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 11.02.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korea, Baikunthpur District Korea, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 41/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by Respondents No. 1 to 4/ applicants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 14,30,800/- as compensation in motor accidental death case and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner. 2. The motor accident occurred on 22.02.2017 by the Tractor-trolley bearing number CG16 E 1815 & CG16 CG 7390 (henceforth called as “offending tractor”) and death of Jeeramati (deceased) is not in dispute. The driver and owner of the offending tractor have filed this appeal on the ground of fastening liability upon them to satisfy the award. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in the claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised by the appellants as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in recording a finding that on the date of accident deceased-Jeeramati was travelling on offending tractor and thereby there was breach of policy conditions. It is further contended that the said finding arrived by the Claims Tribunal is perverse to the oral evidence brought on record by the claimants as also non-applicant No. 1- driver of the offending tractor. He submits that the documents prepared by the police during course of investigation of a criminal case will not be accepted as an evidence for deciding the claim case. 3 / 5 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available on record rightly came to conclusion that on the date of accident deceased was travelling on the tractor, she fell down from it and succumbed to injuries. The aforesaid finding of the Claims Tribunal is on appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference. In support of her contention, she referred the document Ext. P- 2 (F.I.R.), P-5 (property seizure memo), P-7 (morgue intimation), P-8 (post mortem application), P-10 (post-mortem report). 6. I have learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. The short question involved in this appeal is whether on the date of accident deceased was occupant of the tractor or not, perusal of record of claim case would show that the claimants in the pleadings of the claim application have pleaded that due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle it dashed the deceased due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries suffered by her. Claimant No. 1 is examined as AW-1. In his evidence, he denied the suggestion that his wife was travelling along with other persons on the offending tractor. He also stated that at the time of writing report, it is stated that his wife was returning on her foot. 8. Non-applicant No. 1-driver is also examined as NAW-1. In his evidence also he stated that the deceased came in front of tractor and suffered injuries. 9. Insurance Company has not lead any evidence before the Claims Tribunal. 10. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal in para-16 of the impugned award has taken note of the document prepared by the police during course of investigation of criminal case, description of which is mentioned in preceding paragraph. 11. It is well settled law that merely producing documents prepared by the police and part of charge-sheet in itself will not be sufficient to accept them in 4 / 5 evidence. To prove the documents as mentioned above, it requires evidence of persons who in any manner are related to those documents. 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”. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of F.I.R. in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of F.I.R. and held as under: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. 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 eyewitness. 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 5 / 5 has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where the claimants have pleaded and stated that the deceased was walking when she met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor by non-applicant No. 1, in the considered opinion of this Court, Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the deceased was occupant of offending tractor, relying upon Ext. P-2, Final Report and Ext. P-5, F.I.R., and since there was no seating capacity on the tractor, there was breach of policy conditions, is not sustainable. Accordingly the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was breach of policy conditions is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. 14. As the breach of conditions of insurance policy has been set aside by this Court, now the liability to satisfy the award would be upon Respondent No. 5/Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. The appellants will be at liberty to recover the amount so deposited by them pursuant to the award from the amount of compensation to be deposited by Respondent No.5/ Insurance Company. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn