1 / 9 2025:CGHC:27927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1735 of 2019 1. Rajkumar Sagarwanshi S/o Late Ashok Sagarwanshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Ward No. 24 Jamat Para, Behind Jamat Mandir Mishra Gali Rajnandgaon, Police Station, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh......(Owner) 2. Kishore Sahu S/o Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Ward No. 34 Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, Police Station, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhatttisgarh........(Driver) --- Appellant/ non- applicants No. 1 & 2 versus 1. Smt Gulab Bai Wd/o Late Sukhram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Ward No. 2, Ranandgaon, Post And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh......... (Claimant) 2. New India Insurance Company Limited Registered And Head Office New India Insurance Company Building 87, Through Branch Office, First Floor, C.G. Housing Board, Shopping Complex New Bus Stand, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.......(Insurer) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/06/2025 1. Appellants-owner and driver have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 16.04.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 173/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,60,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.09.2017, the Santosh Kumar Sahu son of Respondent No. 1/ applicant was going from Rajnandgaon to Dongargarh for Devi Darshan in a Tata Sumo Gold vehicle number CG 08/Y/1055 (henceforth called as “offending vehicle”) along with his other friends, driven by non-applicant no. 1 Kishore Sahu, father of his son's friend Kushal Sahu. On the way when they had just reached near village Dundera non-applicant no. 1, while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, overturned the vehicle and caused an accident. In the said accident, Santosh Kumar Sahu sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Based on the information of said accident, Crime No. 312/17 was registered in police station Dongargarh against non-applicant no. 1, for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant/ respondent No.1, mother of deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, seeking compensation of ₹ 14,93,600/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was young boy aged about 21 years. He was working in different rice mills as rice bag/ sack packer and earning Rs. 7500/- per month. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted their joint reply and pleaded at the accident did not occur due to negligence on their part. Non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending vehicle was driving his vehicle carefully and slowly. The accident 3 / 9 occurred while trying to save an animal that suddenly came in front of offending vehicle. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3- Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application. While denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the date of the incident. As there was violation of policy conditions, non-applicant No. 3 insurance company is not liable for paying the compensation at all. It is also pleaded that the name of the driver in the First Information Report, Dehati Nalsi and Morgue Intimation is Kushal Sahu and its veracity has not been challenged by Kishor Sahu. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu died in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, however the fact of driving the offending vehicle by non- applicant No. 1 was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,60,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened liability upon non-applicant No. 2 owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident Kushal Sahu, son of appellant No. 2, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident who admittedly not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. The said finding is based only on the contents of the morgue intimation report, F.I.R. and dehati nalsi. He contended that based on the F.I.R., investigation was started by the investigating agency and upon conclusion submitted Final report in which it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 2/ Kishor Sahu and not by Kushal 4 / 9 Sahu and the mistake was admitted by the informant, namely Yogesh Sinha. Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”) was examined as NAW-3-1 by the Insurance Company to prove the accident and the person who was driving. In the evidence, the I.O. has stated that the complainant has subsequently corrected his mistake and has stated that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Kishor Sahu and not Kushal Sahu. The witnesses whose statement was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC have made similar statement before the police. This evidence remain unrebutted. He submits that the copy of documents of the criminal case are required to be proved in accordance with law and it cannot be considered without it being proved by the witnesses. Insurance Company has not submitted any application to call Yogesh Sinha as witness before the Claims Tribunal. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajani Sahoo and others. passed in SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019 on 02.01.2025. 8. Mr. S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/ applicant therein supports the impugned award. 9. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, brought on record, had rightly passed the award fastening liability upon appellant No. 1/ non-applicant No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle. He contended that the Claims Tribunal considering the documentary evidence ie., morgue intimation, dehati nalsi, F.I.R. wherein name of driver of offending vehicle has been mentioned as Kushal Sahu, he was not possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and further that the appellants /non-applicants No. 1 and 2 did not entered the 5 / 9 witness box, has recorded a finding that the I.O. in connivance with non- applicants No. 1 and 2 submitted the final report. The said finding cannot be said to be erroneous. He submits that once the copy of F.I.R., morgue intimation and dehati nalsi are relied upon by the claimants then they cannot be permitted to refute the other part of the same document. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla and others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record and also the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award. 11. Perusal of impugned award would show that the claimant in the claim application has impleaded Kishore Sahu a non-applicant No. 1 and shown to be driver of the Tata Sumo Gold CG08Y1055 (offending vehicle) and non- applicant No. 2 to be registered owner. In the claim application it is pleaded that the deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu along with others were travelling on the offending vehicle and going to Dongargarh for Devi Darshan. In the pleadings, it is pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driving by non- applicant No. 1-Kishore Sahu rashly and negligently and it turned turtle in which Santosh Sahu suffered injuries and died on spot. It is further mentioned that Kishore Sahu father of Kushal Sahu friend of deceased Santosh Sahu was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Claimant has submitted documents of criminal case like morgue intimation report as Ext. P-4, copy of F.I.R. as Ext. P-3 and copy of final report as Ext. P-1. In morgue intimation lodged on 18.09.2017, ie., the date of accident based on the information given by Yogesh Sinha, name of Kushal Sahu has been mentioned to be driver of offending vehicle; similarly in the F.I.R. also name of Kushal Sahu has been shown to be driver of offending vehicle. The 6 / 9 F.I.R. was registered on the same day. Police after investigation has submitted a final report after recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC and collected other material and documents. In the final report, it is mentioned that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was driven by Kishore Sahu and mistakenly informant Yogesh Sinha took name of driver as Kushal Sahu in place of Kishore Sahu and during investigation the I.O. found that Kishore Sahu committed offence and he was arrested on 16.10.2017. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal in paragraphs from 18 to 23 has discussed with regard to the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and considering the contents of the morgue intimation, F.I.R. had concluded that on the date of accident vehicle was being driven by Kushal Sahu. The evidence of I.O. NAW-3-1, Videshi Ram Binia was disbelieved on the ground that he submitted final report Ext. P-1 in connivance with the non-applicants No. 1 & 2. With respect to the admissibility of the F.I.R. and other documents of the criminal case, Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of In case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer, reported in 2005 (1) WN 91, has observed that “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”. 13. 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 7 / 9 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 has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Sahoo (supra) has observed that the claim case is to be decided based on the evidence available before the Tribunal and looking into the documents of police case is not impermissible and held thus: “11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible." 15. In the case at hand, the final report is also forming part of the record as Ext. P-1 which mentions that the informant has made statement correcting his 8 / 9 mistake stating that he mistakenly named Kushal Sahu to be driver of offending vehicle and charge-sheet has been filed against non-applicant 1. 16. Claims cases are to be decided upon appreciation of entire evidence available before the Claims Tribunal. Tribunal cannot presume a fact, it is to be proved in accordance with law. Facts mentioned in F.I.R. or morgue intimation in itself would not be taken to be a gospel truth in absence of any further evidence in proof of said document. The author of contents of aforementioned documents namely Yogesh Sinha has not been examined before the Claims Tribunal, hence the contents mentioned therein in morgue intimation and F.I.R. cannot be accepted in evidence as it is. Claims Tribunal fell into error in considering the contents of F.I.R. and morgue intimation to be correct giving more weightage than the pleading and oral evidence in claim case, which is contrary to law. 17. The F.I.R. or morgue intimation is only the information and intimation to the concerned police station to register a crime and initiate investigation. A final report is to be submitted based on the material collected by the investigating agency. The investigating agency after completion of investigation submitted final report stating non-applicant No. 1 to be driver of offending vehicle. Claims Tribunal disbelieved the contents of final report on the ground of apprehension that the I.O. may have submitted the final report in connivance with non-applicants No. 1 & 2 ie., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence to arrive on such conclusion and therefore in the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being driven by Kushal Sahu only on the basis of contents of morgue intimation and F.I.R. is not sustainable, accordingly it is set aside. 18. In view of the pleadings made in the claim application, evidence available on record that ie., Ext. P-1 final report submitted by the police after investigation, 9 / 9 evidence of NAW-3-1, Videshi Ram Biniya, I.O. of the criminal case examined by non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company in its behalf, it is proved that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by non-applicant No. 1. The police has seized copy of license from non- applicant No. 1. 19. It is not a case of non-applicant-Insurance Company that the license seized by the investigating agency of non-applicant No. 1 was not valid and effective permitting/ authorizing non-applicant No. 1 to drive the offending vehicle which is a Light motor Vehicle, when the vehicle was insured on the date of accident by non-applicant No. 3. 20. For the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that it is not proved that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle is not sustainable and it is set aside. And further that the vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy is also not sustainable and it is also set aside. 21. For the foregoing discussion, appeal is allowed in part, the liability fastened upon non-applicant No. 2/ owner of offending vehicle is set aside. The offending vehicle on the date of accident was being insured by non-applicant No. 3 and therefore the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn