1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1037 of 2019 Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, 345/347 Third Floor, Lal Ganga Shoping Mall, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motor Cycle Cg 08 Nc 2548), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhaggu Lal Sahu S/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 59 Years Working As Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Thana - Dongargarh, Thana And Tahsil - Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Pramod Alias Pinte S/o Tikamchand Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Gol Bazaar, Khairagarh, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3 - Omkar Verma S/o Jivrakhan Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Gram - Genda, Thana And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : None Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.05.12 17:26:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09 / 05 / 2025 1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.90/2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,83,780/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimant/Respondent No.1 and against the appellant/Insurance Company and Respondents No.2 & 3. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short is that, on 17.08.2012 around 2:20 PM, when Respondent No.1/claimant Bhaggu Lal Sahu was returning to Kairagarh on his motorcycle and when he reached near Amaldih Khurd, driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG-08-NC-2548 dashed the motorcycle of the claimant due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, wrist, left hand figures, legs, shoulder and various parts of his body. Therefore, the claimant, had preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/-. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,83,780/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company to be exonerated from the liability. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company argues that the accident happened due to the negligence and haste of the injured 3 Bhaggulal Sahu. The collision of both the motorcycles was head on. In such a situation, the Tribunal should have considered at least contributory negligence, which has not been considered. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and liability may be decided by determining the contributory negligence of the injured as well. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant/Respondent No.1 argues that there is no pleading in the written statement from the insurance company regarding the contributory negligence in the case. No witness has been examined from the side of the insurance company or the driver/owner of the offending vehicle. The statement of the injured Bhaggu Lal is unrebutted in which he has stated that the accident happened due to the negligence and rashness of the driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet has also been presented against the driver of the offending vehicle which confirms the statement of the injured Bhaggu Lal. Hence the appeal of the insurance company may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On scrutiny, it is found that the appellant insurance company has not pleaded about contributory negligence, but according to the written statement submitted by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, the claimant Bhaggu Lal had hit the offending vehicle while driving his motorcycle at high speed and negligently, which caused the accident, but the driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined in support of the said statement. 8. The statement of the injured Bhaggu Lal has mentioned the fact that the collision was head-on. His statement also makes it clear that at the time of the accident, half of the main road going to Khairagarh-Lanji was dug up due to the widening work going on, due to which the right side of the road was left, in which he was going slowly and cautiously on the motorcycle, when he reached near the electricity pole of village Amlidih Khurd, driver of the 4 offending vehicle Pramod alias Pinte hit his vehicle from the front with another person sitting behind him at high speed and negligently. Bhaggu Lal has remained firm in his statement. 9. The driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined. Dashrath, who was sitting behind the driver of the offending vehicle, has also not been examined and Bhaggu Lal's statement is supported by the charge-sheet produced by the Police. In such a situation, the argument of the appellant insurance company is not found to be acceptable and no contributory negligence has been found on the part of claimant/Respondent No.1 Bhaggu Lal. In such a situation, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the Claims Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 11. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham