1 2025:CGHC:37364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1827 of 2019 1 - Akhilesh Pratap Singh S/o A.P. Singh Aged About 48 Years Caste Kshatriya Occupation Transporter, R/o Jail Road Babupara, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Phooleshwari Yadav W/o Dhanushdhari Yadav, Aged About 47 Years Caste Ahir, Occupation House Wife 2 - Dhanushdhari Yadav S/o Ram Kumar Yadav, Aged About 50 Years Caste Ahir, Occupation Farmer Both are R/o Village Paladnouli, Rajmanpara, House No. 74, Ward No. 1, P.S. And Tehsil Odgi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Suraj @ Rajeshwar, S/o Shiv Prasad, Aged About 45 Years Caste Panika, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Khorma, P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Karanjwal, P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.. 4 - Branch Manager Through The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1829 of 2019 1 - Akhilesh Pratap Singh S/o. A.P. Singh Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village Babupara, Jail Road Ambikapur, Police Station, Tehsil And Post Office Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.14 10:57:22 +0530 2 ----Appellant Versus 1 - Bikul Sing S/o Jagmohan Aged About 43 Years 2 - Smt. Koshaliya Singh W/o Bikul Singh Aged About 38 Years 3 - Manjulata D/o Bikul Singh Aged About 20 Years 4 - Sachin Singh S/o Bikul Singh Aged About 18 Years 5 - Rajanti Wd/o Arvind Singh Aged About 19 Years No.1 to 5 all Resident Of Village Paladnoli, Post Office, Police Station And Tehsil Odgi District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Suraj @ Rajeshwar Panika S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 27 Years Occupation Driver,caste Panika, Resident Of Village Karanjwar, Post Office, P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager Through The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 in MAC No.1829 of 2019 : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.5 in MAC No.1829 of 2019 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.4 in MAC No.1827 of 2019 and respondent No. 7 in MAC No.1829 of 2019 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/07/2025 1. Both the appeals are filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dated 29.06.2019, passed in Claim Case No. 87/2017 and Claim Case No.72 of 2017, whereby the 3 learned 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- and Rs.21,54,940/- respectively to the claimants in death cases exonerating the insurance company from its liability, fastened the liability upon owner/appellant of the offending vehicle. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that claim applications were filed by the applicants/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.85,53,280/- against the death of Rajesh Yadav and Arvind Singh respectively pleading therein that 31.05.2017, at about 9:30 AM, Rajesh alias Raju Yadav was riding as pillion on motor cycle bearing No. CG-15-CX-7783 of his friend Arvind Singh. They were traveling from Bhaiyathan Odgi main road to village of Rajesh Yadav, when they reached near house of Kalamanjan Pratap God, a Bus bearing No. CG-15-A-6846, driven by non-pplicant No.1 rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle as a consequence of which Rajesh Yadav and Arvind Singh both suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. 3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed reply denying the averments made in the claim applications. It was pleaded that claim application on false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 4. Non-applicants No. 3 also filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, 4 non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. Offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions without there being any permit and fitness certificate. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed both the claim applications in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- and Rs.21,54,940/- exonerated non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company from its liability and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2/owner of offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erroneously arrived at conclusion that Suraj @ Rajeshwar was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, only relying upon the contents of the FIR lodged by one Bikul Singh. He also submits that both the claim cases were considered and disposed of on the same day by the same Tribunal and in one of the claim case, complainant Bikul Singh (father of deceased Arvind Singh) has been examined as (A.W.-1) who in his examination-in-chief, specifically stated that non- applicant No.1 Suraj @ Rajeshwar is driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed motor cycle on which his son was traveling. This witness was cross-examined by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company, however, no specific question is put to this witness by Insurance Company about Suraj and Rajeshwar Singh to be the two different persons or not. The evidence of witness Bikul Singh (A.W.-1) (complainant in FIR) remained unshaken, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal committed error in taking different view than the evidence available on record. He submits that when the documents of police 5 case is also available before Claims Tribunal as also the oral evidence then oral evidence of the witnesses appeared before the Claims Tribunal has to be given weightage. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596. 7. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating entire documentary and oral evidence, have assigned reasons to arrive at conclusion that Suraj and Rajeshwar are two different persons, their father’s name and description is also different. The reason assigned for disbelieving the case projected by the claimants impleading Suraj @ Rajeshwar as non-applicant No.1, driver is on appreciation of evidence available on record, hence, it does not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the respective claimants would also support the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the claimant in MAC No. 1829 of 2019 would submit that he has filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased. 6 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that in both the claim case, claimants have filed the documents of police case including final report, FIR as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. In the FIR there is mention of name of driver as Rajeshwar Ram. The FIR was lodged by Bikul Singh. From the contents of FIR, it is appearing that he was not the witness to the accident, but he reached on the spot at later point of time. This witness is examined as AW-1 in Claim Case No.72 of 2017 (in record of MAC No.1829 of 2019). In his examination-in-chief, filed in the form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C., he stated that the motor cycle on which his son was travelling was dashed by bus coming from opposite direction bearing No.C.G.-15A-6846, driven by Suraj @ Rajeshwar. In the pleadings of the claim case also, claimants in both the claim cases have arrayed Suraj @ Rajeshwar as driver of offending vehicle as party non-applicant No.1. In para 19 of pleadings of the claim application, name of driver of offending bus is mentioned as Suraj @ Rajeshwar. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has extensively cross-examined this witness Bikul Singh, however, had not put specific question as to the name mentioned in the FIR and the pleadings in the claim application and the facts submitted under Order 18 Rule 14 with regard to name of driver of offending vehicle as Suraj @ Rajeshwar. He was not confronted with the name as mentioned in the FIR while he was cross-examined by learned counsel for non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company. The owner and driver of the 7 offending vehicle also entered into witness box and they have stated that driver is also known as Suraj @ Rajeshwar. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering pleadings and the evidence that the offending vehicle was driven by driver Suraj @ Rajeshwar, considered government documents like license of driver and noticed that in license there is no mention of name of driver as Suraj @ Rajeshwar but in the government records as stated by non-applicant No.1 it is only mentioned as Suraj and came to conclusion that police in collusion with driver and owner of offending vehicle submitted final report in the name of Suraj @ Rajeshwar. The said observation and the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on presumption and surmises. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chamundeswari (supra) while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of the contents of documents prepared by the police has observed thus :- “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 8 has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.” 13. In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer, reported in 2005 (1) WN 91, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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”. 14. In the facts of the case and the decision as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in accepting the contents of FIR to be admissible evidence, which is against the law and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh as referred above. 15. The Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation only observing that offending vehicle was driven by Rajeshwar at the time of accident and his driving license is not produced. 16. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that addition of name of Suraj @ Rajeshwar is without any clinching and admissible evidence, the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is perverse to oral evidence available in record and hence, not sustainable, accordingly it is set-aside. 9 17. From the pleadings, final report (Ex.P-1) (in MAC No.1829 of 2019) and the oral evidence of witness examined on behalf of the claimants as also the non-applicants would clearly show that driver of the offending vehicle was Suraj @ Rajeshwar and on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company, therefore, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation will be upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 18. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants on cross objection filed in MAC No.1829 of 2019 seeking enhancement of amount compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, claimant No.1 and 2 are parents, and claimant/respondent No.5 is wife of the deceased, however, the compensation under the head of loss of consortium is only given to respondent No.5, widow of the deceased and not to the parents of deceased. 19. The issue with regard to award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the parents has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that parents of the deceased would also be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Hence, it is ordered that the claimant No.1 and 2 will also be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. total Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium 10 in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.21,54,940/- computed and awarded to the claimants. The enhanced amount of Rs.80,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. Accordingly, both the appeals and cross objection (in MAC No.1829 of 2019) are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram