1 2025:CGHC:29308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 41 of 2019 Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Nagar Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Duver Pati Singh, W/o Late Anuplal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation House Work, 2 - Preetam Singh, S/o Anuplal Singh, Aged About 5 Years, Occupation Nothing, 3 - Dilsan Kumar Singh, S/o Late Anuplal Singh, Aged About 3 Years, Occupation- Nil. 4 - Smt. Rameshwari, W/o Budhan Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Occupation House Work. Respondent No.2 and 3 are Minor, Through: Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.1 Smt. Duver Pati Singh, W/o Late Anuplal Singh, All are R/o Village Tangar Mahri, Piparpara, Post Balrampur, Police Station And Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur -Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - Budhan Singh S/o Late Jaymangal Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Tangar Mahri, Piparpara, Post Balrampur Police Station and Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.(Owner) ... Respondents PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.17 15:24:16 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/07/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned order dated 18/09/2018 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 248/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and awarded total sum of 5,00,000/- as compensation in ₹ motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17/07/2017, Anuplal, while driving the Tractor, bearing No. C.G. 15/ D.D.- 5248 on the instructions of the Non-Applicant No.2, was ploughing the agriculture field. While doing so, due to mechanical fault of the Tractor of failing of the steering, it met with an accident and turned turtle, Anuplal Singh came under the Tractor and suffered grievous injuries over his person and died on spot. 3. Claimants, who are widow, children and mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 163-A seeking compensation against the death of Anuplal stating therein that, he was working as a driver of the Tractor, earning Rs.3,300/- per month salary and claimed total sum of Rs.10,04,900/- as compensation. Non-applicant No.1-Insurance 3 Company submitted reply to the claim application resisting pleadings made in the application under Section 163-A. It is specifically denied that the offending vehicle suffered mechanical failure. The deceased was not possessed with valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident and further that, the date of birth as mentioned in the Educational testimonials as 03/12/1991 and, therefore, on the date of issuance of license stated to be issued from RTO, Bhind, age of the deceased was only 11 years. Non-applicant No.2 also submitted reply to the claim application and it was pleaded that the compensation claimed is exaggerated, on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No.1- Insurance Company. The deceased was having valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties felt that the breach of policy condition of the Insurance Policy could not be proved, allowed the application in part and awarded sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 5. Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering that the copy of license produced before the Tribunal as Ex.P/9C in the name of deceased was forged and fabricated document. He contended that, different date of birth have been mentioned in the documents placed on record before the Claim Tribunal and in the Criminal Case. He also contended that the Appellant-Insurance Company has taken the specific defence with regard to the date of birth of the brother of the 4 deceased as mentioned in the FIR to be of the year 1987 and deceased has been stated to be younger brother of the informant and, therefore, considering the contents of the FIR, the date on which the license is said to be issued, age of deceased cannot be more than 14 years. He also contended that the father of the deceased- Budhan Singh was examined before the Claims Tribunal as AW-2 in cross- examination, specific question is put to this witness about the date of birth or the age of the deceased, which has not been properly answered and no details have been stated by him, which shows that the said witnesses made an attempt to suppress the material facts. 6. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents opposes the submission and would submit that the appellant- Insurance Company was party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal as non- applicant No.1, it submitted the reply. Claimants have produced the copy of license of the deceased as evidence before the Claim Tribunal, however, non-applicant No.1 therein has not examined any witness in their plea of the license produced to be forged and fabricated. They have not obtained particulars of license, from the concerned Regional Transport Officer and have not examined any witness of the said office and, therefore, the defence taken by the Insurance Company with respect to the forged and fabricated license of the deceased available on record remained unproved. Learned Claims Tribunal has decided the case based on the evidence available on record, there is no merit in this appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with an accident while driving the Tractor, he came under Tractor and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries. Claimants to prove the pleadings made in the application under Section 163-A that the deceased was engaged as a driver and he met with an accident while driving the offending vehicle, examined witnesses and also produce copy of license, which is issued under the seal of the Licensing Authority, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh marked as Ex.P/9C. Copy of the driving license particulars obtained on 13/10/2017 is also placed on record as Ex.P/10. The appellant- Insurance Company, even after having the particulars of the license, as the copy of license is available on record, have not made any attempt to prove the license placed on record by the claimants to be forged and fabricated by obtaining the particulars of the driving license, from the concerned licensing authority and examining any of the officials of the Regional Transport Office or the Licensing Authority before the Claims Tribunal as witness. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the contents of the FIR and also the other materials as available in the charge-sheet and the documents of the Criminal Case available in the record of the Claim Case reflecting the date of birth of the deceased. Consideration of the documents of the Criminal Case or the charge-sheet as evidence in the Civil Proceedings more particularly, in the proceedings of the Claim Case is well settled by the Court. 10. In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer and Others, reported in 2006 ACJ 803, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has 6 observed that, even assuming the FIR to be a public document, it is rule of law that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only for purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the maker only. In the case in hand, the maker of the document or any of the police officials have not been examined by the appellant-Insurance Company to prove the contents of the said documents. It is well settled proposition of law that, documents of Criminal Case and the evidence arrived at thereon, should not be used in the Claim Case. 11. 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 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. In the case in hand, learned Claims Tribunal while considering the evidence available in Claim Case concluded that, the appellant- Insurance Company has not placed any evidence to show that the 7 particulars of the driving license filed by the claimants to prove that the deceased was not having the valid and effective driving license and has not brought any evidence, nor has examined any witness recorded a finding that the insurance company failed to prove the issue of breach of policy conditions. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case and finding recorded by Claims Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case and arrived at a conclusion that Insurance Company failed to prove breach of policy conditions. 13. As Claim Case was filed under Section 163-A, the Claims Tribunal was not required to consider the negligence for entertaining application seeking compensation. 14. For the forgoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal, accordingly, it is liable to be inadmissible and dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Prashant