(MAC No.1157/2022) 2025:CGHC:40578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1157 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Station Road, Near Gurudwara, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.3) ... Appellant versus 1. Sandeep Kumar Verma, S/o Late Nakul Prasad Verma, aged 32 years, R/o Bhatha Para Selood, Ward No. 19, P.S. Utai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Applicant) 2. Yatendra Dewangan, S/o Thakur Ram Dewangan, aged 47 years, R/o Azad Chowk, Patan Ward No. 7, P.S. Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver) (Non-applicant No.1) 3. Mohammad Hasim Akhai, S/o Mohd. Ayub Akhai, aged 24 years, R/o Vidhansabha Road, Mova, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) (Non-applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/08/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.08.18 16:41:06 +0530 (MAC No.1157/2022) legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 9-6- 2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No.70/2021, by which liability to pay a total compensation of ₹ 9,96,583/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that injured Sandeep Kumar Verma was contributory negligent in driving the vehicle, as he was under the influence of liquor and the doctor has also opined that the applicant (injured Sandeep Kumar Verma) was chronic alcoholic and under the influence of liquor, vide Exs.D-1 & D-2 – medical documents, therefore, 50% of the awarded amount would be deducted, as the applicant/claimant himself was contributory negligent. 3. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein/applicant/claimant/injured, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant Insurance Company would show that the plea of contributory negligence has not been expressly taken before the learned Claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company also did not adduce any (MAC No.1157/2022) evidence to show that the injured/claimant was under the influence of liquor while driving the vehicle and no urine test or blood test was conducted to ascertain whether he was under the influence of liquor while driving the vehicle. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal has rejected the plea of contributory negligence and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to pass the impugned award in which I do not find any legal error and good ground for interference. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma