1 2025:CGHC:25987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1412 of 2017 1 - I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Incharge Officer, Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vanijya Bhawan, 1st Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramsnehi Sahu S/o Shri Aaju Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mohtara Teli, Thana And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Shakun W/o Shri Ramsnehi Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Mohtara Teli, Thana And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Rekha Sahu D/o Shri Ramsnehi Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor And Hence Represented By Her Father Shri Ramsnehi Sahu, Being Her Natural Guardian, R/o Village Mohtara Teli, Thana And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deendayal S/o Shri Gautam Kumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mohtara Teli, Thana And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Gautam Kumar Jaiswal R/o House No. 33, School Para, Village Mohtarateli, Thana And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Owner. , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.06.24 19:15:20 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Additional Member to the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in Claim Case No.H-56/2016. 2. Claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 preferred a claim case against the appellant/insurer and respondents No.4 and 5, driver and owner, respectively on account of death of late Dushyant Sahu resulting from an accident occurred on 29.3.2015. The accident took place when the deceased who was riding his own motor cycle was hit by the offending motor cycle from the opposite direction resulting in serious injuries to which the deceased succumbed. The tribunal vide the impugned award allowed the application filed by the claimants holding as under: (i) That the accident had occurred resulting in death of late Dushyant Sahu. (ii) That the appellant/insurer had not proved the breach of terms of the insurance policy. (iii) That the appellant/insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.7,54,000 to the claimants. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submits that the tribunal has committed a gross error in directing the appellant to make the necessary payment of the compensation. The tribunal utterly failed to appreciate the facts brought on record concerning the claim raised by the claimants. The tribunal erred in computing the compensation. The tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the accident was a result of contributory negligence for which the deceased was equally responsible and therefore, the tribunal ought to have made appropriate deductions towards contributory negligence. The tribunal also failed to consider that there was no eye witness to the accident and there was no independent proof of the accident. The tribunal failed to consider that even the driver of the alleged offending vehicle deposed that there was no accident and his vehicle was being unnecessarily and wrongfully impleaded. 4. No one appears for the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 6. From the perusal of record it seems that while holding the occurrence of the accident the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence as led by the claimants. From the evidence of the claimant AW1, from the documentary evidence, final report Ex.A1, FIR Ex.A2, merg information Ex.A3 and arrest memo Ex.A8 the claimants have duly proved the accident and the 4 Tribunal has not erred in law while dismissing the plea raised by the claimants as non-applicant No.1 could not dispute the accident before the Tribunal. From the documentary as well oral evidence the accident was duly proved as such accident was not in dispute. Though the insurance company has alleged that the vehicle was being run in contravention of the insurance policy, however, the said facts have not been substituted by oral and documentary proof as such the Tribunal has held that there is no proof that the vehicle was being run in contravention of the insurance policy. Further, from the evidence as led by the parties the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim as filed by the claimants and in the case of death of deceased it has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. Since the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law, it is not required to be interfered with and no ground is available to the insurance company to challenge the award passed by the Tribunal. There is no evidence as such regarding contributory negligence as stated by the insurance company. As such the appeal fails and is dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal is hereby affirmed. The insurance company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest as directed by the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from today if the said amount has not been paid. 7. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the claimants, the Registry is directed to intimate about passing of this order to 5 the concerned claimants i.e. respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein on their postal address in writing so that they may receive the amount of compensation if it is already not received. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh