1 MAC No. 1824 of 2023, MAC No. 1854 of 2023 & MAC No. 1786 of 2023 2025:CGHC:54835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1824 of 2023  The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Near Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1.Saraswati Krishan W/o Krishnaram Aged About 55 Years; 2.Krishnaram S/o Late Tijuram Aged About 60 Years; Both are R/o - 16-B K Pocket, Maroda Sector, Civic Center, Bhilai P.S. Newai Teh. And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3.Amol Singh S/o Ginni Singh R/o Village Dabra, Laxmi Colony, Ward No. 11, P.S. Dabra, Distt. Gwaliar (Mp)(Driver). 4.Jagtar Singh S/o Jagir Singh R/o - Village Chhapra, P.S. - Pichaur, Tehsil- Dabra, District- Gwaliar (MP)(Owner). --- Respondents MAC No. 1854 of 2023  The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Near Old Bus Stand Road, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.11.12 10:30:48 +0530 2 MAC No. 1824 of 2023, MAC No. 1854 of 2023 & MAC No. 1786 of 2023 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Non- Applicant No. 3). --- Appellant Versus 1.Jharna Seth Wd/o Late Radhakanto Badhaiyee Aged About 29 Years; 2.Shreyanshi Badhaiyee D/o Late Radhakanto Badhaiyee Aged- 06 Months, Minor Through His Mother- Jharna Seth (Res. No. 1); Both are R/o Barehamuda, P.O.- Kadobahal Larambha, District Bargarh Odissa. 3.Amol Singh S/o Ginni Singh R/o Village Dabra, Laxmi Colony, Ward No. 11, P.S. Dabra, District- Gwaliar (MP) (Driver) (Non-Applicant No. 1). 4.Jagtar Singh S/o Jagir Singh R/o Village Chhapra, P.S.- Pichaur, Tehsil- Dabra, District Gwaliar (MP) (Owner) (Non-Applicant No. 2). --- Respondents MAC No. 1786 of 2023  The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Near Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1.Triptimayee Sadanagi Wd/o Late Devashish Mishra, Aged About 25 Years; 2.Rehansh Mishra, S/o Late Devashish Mishra, Aged About 4 Years, minor Through His Mother - Triptimai Sadanagi Res. No. 1); 3 MAC No. 1824 of 2023, MAC No. 1854 of 2023 & MAC No. 1786 of 2023 Both are R/o Village Bhalupia, P.O. Gajbahal, P.S. M. Rampur, Teh. Kerlamunda, District Kalahandi Odissa. 3.Amol Singh, S/o Ginni Singh, R/o Village Dabra, Laxmi Colony, Ward No. 11, P.S. Dabra, District Grwaliar (MP) (Driver). 4.Jagtar Singh, S/o Jagir Singh, R/o Vill. Chhapra, P.S. Pichaur, Teh. Dabra, District Gwaliar (MP) (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant(s) :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.11.2025 1.Since present three cases have arisen out of the same accident, they have been clubbed together heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2.These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellant(s)/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 27.06.2023 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4 MAC No. 1824 of 2023, MAC No. 1854 of 2023 & MAC No. 1786 of 2023 Bilaspur, in Claim Cases No. 1233/2021; 294/2022 and 1326/2021, respectively. 3.Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that deceased persons Devashish Mishra and Radhakanto were not the occupant. He would also submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation amount to the claimants as the driver of the Bolero vehicle while driving the vehicle was contributorily negligent and, therefore, the compensation amount ought to have been deducted to the extent of 50%. 4.Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, would support the impugned award and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records precisely. 6.The plea of contributory negligence has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal holding that the 5 MAC No. 1824 of 2023, MAC No. 1854 of 2023 & MAC No. 1786 of 2023 Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence to demonstrate the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero which, in my considered opinion is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and even otherwise, it is well settled that the Insurance Company ought to have led the evidence to prove the contributory negligence. Further, deceased persons namely Devashish Mishra and Radhakanto were the occupant of the vehicle and, therefore, contributory negligence cannot be attributed on their part. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the said plea of the Insurance Company. 7.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in present three appeals, accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit