1 2025:CGHC:42041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1673 of 2019 The New India Insurance Company Limited C/o Divisional Manager Chouhan Estate G.E. Road Near Mourya Talkies Bhilai And Branch Manager Near Sbi Atm Nandini Road Lachmipara Jamul District Durg (Chhattisgarh), Through Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suit Legal Hub Office, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Prabha Goswami Wd/o Late Kushal Puri Goswami Aged About 40 Years R/o Dream City Umda Road Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ankit Puri Goswami S/o Late Kushal Puri Goswami Aged About 21 Years R/o Dream City Umda Road Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Akshay Puri Goswami S/o Late Kushal Puri Goswami Aged About 15 Years Through Respondent No.1, Guardian Mother Smt. Prabha Goswami, R/o Dream City Umda Road Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.23 13:12:23 +0530 2 4 - Dev Puri Goswami Late Buddha Puri Goswami Aged About 75 Years R/o Dream City Umda Road Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 5 - Smt. Rukhmani Goswami W/o Dev Puri Goswami Aged About 68 Years R/o Dream City Umda Road, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dashrath S/o Chain Das Aged About 30 Years R/o D-23 C.S.P.T.C.L Colony Khedamara Jamul District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 7 - Chain Das S/o Amoldas Aged About 55 Years R/o D-23 C.S.P.T.C.L Colony Khedamara Jamul District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ...Non-Applicants/ Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 to 7 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/08/2025 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 29.04.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 402/2015, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by the claimants under Section 3 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 76,09,168/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.06.2015 Kushal Puri Goswami (deceased) was going to Raipur from Bhilai for his duty, sitting behind the scooter of non-applicant no. 1 bearing registration no. CG 07 AP 6080. When they both reached near the power grid situated in Kumhari, non-applicant no. 1 drove his scooty rashly and negligently and caused accident. Due to the accident Kushal Puri Goswami (deceased) suffered grievous injuries in various parts of his body. He was taken to the Apollo Hospital, Bhilai for treatment, where he died during treatment. Accident was reported to Police Station Kumhari, District-Durg based on which Crime No. 183/2015 was registered against non-applicant No. 1. 3. Applicants-claimants are widow, children and parents of deceased- Kushal Puri Goswami, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 1,52,24,392/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 47 years. He was working as a motor driver in Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur, earning Rs. 75,985/- per month. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident deceased himself was driving the said vehicle, accident occurred due to his own negligence and deceased as well as non-applicant no. 1 received injuries. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, 4 offending vehicle was insured by non-applicant No. 3, thus, liability to pay any compensation if awarded will be of Non-applicant no. 3. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application. While denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, thus, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if any. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Kushal Puri Goswami died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant no. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated compensation and awarded ₹ 76,09,168/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants therein, jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the oral evidence of non-applicant no. 1. He contended that in his evidence before the Tribunal he clearly stated that deceased himself was driving the vehicle and, therefore, accidental injuries suffered by deceased was on account of his own negligence and, therefore, claimants will not be entitled for any compensation. He also pointed out that evidence of AW-02, appears to be suspicious as he did not informed the family members of deceased about the accident immediately, however he informed father of 5 deceased but after a lapse of long time. There is delay in lodging of FIR, accident occurred on 25.06.2015 whereas the FIR was lodged on 03.10.2015 after about more than three and a half months of the accident and, therefore, the case as set up by claimants prima facie appears to be suspicious which the learned Claims Tribunal failed to take into consideration. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 5/claimants would vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company and would submit that claimant no. 1 is widow of deceased, claimant no. 2 and 3 are children of deceased and claimant no. 4 and 5 are parents of deceased. It is contended that accident took place little far from the place of residence, they were not witness to the accident, however, when they came to know that deceased suffered motor accidental injuries when non-applicant no. 1 was driving the vehicle they immediately lodged an FIR to concerned Police Station. In the facts of the case, even if there is some delay in lodging of the FIR, it could not be attributed to claimants and they will not be made to suffer for the wrong committed by others. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. Reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal have correctly relied upon the evidence of AW-02 Subhanshu Pandey, eye witness to the accident. It is contended that if for any reason the eyewitness to accident is not made witness of the criminal case would not in itself be sufficient to discarde his evidence as eye witness. Taking the statement and making any person witness to the criminal case is the work of Police and, therefore, claimants may not be 6 penalized for the lapses of the Police, if any. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbeer reported in 2011 3 SCC 646. He also submits that claim case are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities considering entire material available on record of claim case i.e. pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties and learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of entire evidence available on record justified in allowing the claim application filed by respondent no. 1 to 5, and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others 2009 13 SCC 530. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 6 and 7 would submit that the dispute as raised by counsel for the appellant, is against the claimants and, therefore, he is not making any submission on the merits of the case. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 11. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR which makes the case of claimant’s suspicious about the manner in which accident is reported, from the cause title of claim application it is apparent claimant no. 1 is widow mother, claimant no. 2 and 3 are young siblings and claimant no. 4 and 5 are old aged parents of deceased. The documents which are available on record i.e., treatment of deceased Ex. P-03 and Ex. P- 04 would show that deceased suffered grievous injuries on head 7 mentioning road traffic accident. The death summary mentioned under the column of history of patient that the patient was brought in a very critical state, having accident and alleged history of traffic accident occurred on 25.06.2015. He was continuously under treatment in Appollo BSR Hospital from 25.06.2015 till 08.08.2015. The injured died on 08.08.2015. In such state of mind of claimants who are taking care of deceased, who was fighting with life and death could not be excepted, that they will enquire about the manner as to how the accident occurred, approached to the Police or other authorities informing about accident during that period. They may not even ask as to how deceased suffered serious motor accidental injuries from non- applicant no. 1 who was driving on the fateful day of accident. It may even not be excepted from them that even after the death of a family member and loosing the bread winner the family members of the deceased who were in grief would immediately rush to the police or have enquired about the manner of the accident. 12. AW-01 in her evidence stated that her husband accompanied non- applicant no. 1 on his scooty, on the way non-applicant no. 1 drove his scooty rashly and negligently and caused accident. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Badrinarayan (supra) while considering the issue with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR have observed as under: “17.It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot except a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the 8 police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.” 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Badrinarayan(supra), I do not find any merit in the submission made by counsel for appellant that the case set up by claimants is suspicious only on the ground of delay in lodging of FIR is not sustainable. Accordingly it is repelled. 14. So far as the other submission made by counsel for appellant that the eye witness to accident AW-02 Subhash Pandey is implanted witness, also is not acceptable in the facts of the case. AW-02 entered into the witness box and he has been extensively cross-examined. Nothing adverse has come in his evidence so as to discard his evidence before the Claims Tribunal. The claim cases are to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Considering entirety of facts and circumstances of the case brought on record before the Claims Tribunal therein Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi (supra) in para 11 and 15 has observed this: “11. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a tribunal stricto sensu is not bount by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the even an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the claimant’s predecessor had taken place by reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be ignored only on the basis of a post-mortem report vis-a-vis the averments made in a claim petition. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to 9 establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” 15. In the facts of the case, taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter, the relation between the deceased and non-applicant no. 1, evidence of AW-01 and non-applicant no. 1 that both of them are working in the same office, use to travel on two wheeler of either person on alternate days. In the opinion of this Court, claimants are not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but they have to prove it on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Learned Claims Tribunal justified in allowing the claim application upon appreciating the facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties. For the forgoing discussion the submission of counsel for appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim application holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant no. 1 to be erroneous is not sustainable. Accordingly it is repelled. 16. So far as the submission of counsel for appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded excess amount of compensation of Rs.76,09,168/- to be erroneous. Learned Claims Tribunal has determined the income of deceased as Rs. 48,828/- which is appreciation of evidence and considering the pay slip of deceased. Counsel for appellant could not point out from the records that preparation of the monthly salary of deceased to be in any manner erroneous. The learned Claims Tribunal added 30% of assessed income towards future prospect, applied deduction of 1/4th and used multiplier of 13 which is to the tune of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 10 matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, however awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to respondent no. 1 to 5 for which they are entitled. However, claimants have not preferred any appeal, hence this Court is not going towards that aspect. 17. For the forgoing discussion I do not find any substance in the submission made by counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation is excessive. 18. For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the present case and is liable to be dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza