1 2025:CGHC:18610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1958 of 2019 1 - Sundar Singh Druve S/o Late Somnath Dhruve Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Khartha Tahsil And P.S. Charama District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Anita Bai W/o Sundar Singh Dhruve Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khartha Tahsil And P.S. Charama District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vikas Ram S/o Sundar Singh Dhruve Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khartha Tahsil And P.S. Charama District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Miss Anuradha Dhruve D/o Sundar Singh Dhruve Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khartha Tahsil And P.S. Charama District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Dharam Das @ Dharmo Goldar S/o Gurudas Goldar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village P.V. 72 Tahsil Pakhanjur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 24 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal against the award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.28 10:14:52 +0530 2 No.125/2018 whereby the claim application has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case were that on the date of the accident i.e. 16.04.2018, at about 9:00 pm, Shatrughan Dhruv (now deceased), along with his friend Sandeep, was going by the roadside on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04- LF-4339, at that time, the driver/owner (respondent) of the vehicle pick-up bearing registration No. CG-04-TC-0042 driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, due to which Shatrughan Dhruv sustained grievous injuries. He was escorted to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries on 17.04.2018. Matter was reported to the police, and a case was registered against the driver/owner (respondent) of the vehicle. It is pleaded that the deceased Shatrughan Dhurv was aged about 27 years on the date of the accident and was appointed as a constable in the police department and was earning Rs. 29,611/- per month. Hence, a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been filed by the claimants claiming a total compensation of Rs. 74,60,464/-. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, found that the deceased Shatrughan Dhruv was in intoxicated condition at the time of accident and it is also not proved from the evidence produced by the appellants/claimants that the respondent caused accident of the deceased motorcycle driving the offending vehicle i.e. pick-up in rash and negligent manner. Further, it was held that the accident occurred due to the driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Shatrughan Dhruv in intoxicated conditions. Therefore, the claimants/appellants are not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the claim application has been rejected. Hence the present appeal. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned claims tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim of the appellants, stating that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The final report has been filed against the respondent, which has not been challenged by him, which prima facie shows his involvement in the accident. He further submits that the eyewitness to the incident, NAW-2 Sandeep Nayak, has also verified and admitted in the cross-examination in para Nos. 8 & 9 that the criminal case is pending against the respondent before the learned J.M.F.C. Pakhanjoor in connection with the said accident. And there is no piece of evidence to show that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that in an accident claim case, the case does not have to be proved beyond doubt; the facts can be established on the basis of probability. In this case, the charge sheet has been filed against the offending vehicle's driver. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed, and the claimants are entitled to get just and proper compensation. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@SLP (c) No. 29302 of 2019). 5. Learned counsel for respondent opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. In the case in hand, it is evident from FIR Ex.P-2 that the accident had occurred in front of Pakhanjoor School. Appellant Sundar Singh Dhruv (AW-1) has admitted in his 4 cross-examination that he has not seen the accident taking place. He also admitted that he is not aware of the fact of whose fault the said accident occurred. Whereas the respondent Dharamdas (NAW-1) and his witnesses Sandeep Nayak (NAW-2) and Nirmal Kirtaniya (NAW-3) have stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased Shatrughan Dhruv was in an intoxicated condition. Furthermore, the statement of Sandeep Nayak (NAW-2) has been corroborated by FIR Ex.P-2 that he was sitting on the motorcycle of the deceased as a pillion rider. Further, it is also clear from the MLC report Ex.P-5 that the deceased was in an intoxicated condition at the time of the accident, due to which he was confused while driving the motorcycle. Respondent/driver Dharamdas has stated that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in drunken state at high speed and rashly collided with his parked vehicle, which has been confirmed by the deceased's pillion rider Sandeep (NAW-2), who has remained unrebutted in his statement. In such a situation, the statement of the respondent (NAW-1) and Sandeep Nayak (NAW-2), who was a pillion rider in the motorcycle of the deceased, and they were examined before the Court, meaning thereby their statements are a substantive piece of evidence, which cannot be disbelieved. 8. The deceased was a constable in the police department. Respondent Dharamdas (NAW-1) has stated that instead of lodging his report, the police have co-operated with their police personnel and lodged a false report against him, therefore, the report and charge sheet are false, which were prepared against him. 9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari and Others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 has held that if 5 the statements of the eye witnesses examined before the court are not contradicted/rebutted by other witnesses present at the spot, the same cannot be considered as contradicted/rebutted on the basis of the First Information Report. In paragraph-8 of the said judgment it has been observed 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, has 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 eye–witness. 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.” 10. In the light of the above judgment, the statements of Dharamdas (NAW-1), the witness of the spot and Sandeep Nayak (NAW-2), pillion rider of the deceased’s motorcycle, which remained unrebutted, are more reliable than the FIR or charge sheet. 11. Considering all the above facts and evidence, it is clear that at the time of the accident, the deceased was in an intoxicated condition, due to which he was confused while driving the motorcycle and himself was responsible for meeting with the said accident. In view of the difference in facts, the appellant does not get the benefit of the judgment relied upon by him. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is 6 based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu