1 2025:CGHC:54221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1269 of 2018 ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Throgh Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Nirmala Sahu W/o Kamta Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Maditarai, Tahsil And Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gaindlal Rajak S/o Jhaggar Rajak Aged About 26 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Village Padguda, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dwarika Rajak , S/o Jhaggar Rajak, Aged About 37 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Village Padguda, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kamta S/o Dhanuk Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Maditarai, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dilip Sahu S/o Dhanuk Ram, R/o Village Maditarai, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 1193 of 2018 Nirmala Sahu W/o Kamta Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Caste Teli R/o Village Maditrai P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 19:01:30 +0530 2 1 - Gend Lal Rajak S/o Jhaggar Rajak, Aged About 26 Years Caste Dhobi Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 08 V 5671 R/o Village Padguda, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dwarika Rajak S/o Jhaggar Rajak, Aged About 37 Years Caste Dhobi Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 08 V 5671 R/o Village Padguda, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kamta S/o Dhanuk Ram Aged About 40 Years Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 08 Ab 1310 R/o Village Maditrai P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dilip Sahu S/o Dhanuk Ram Sahu Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 08 Ab 1310 R/o Village Maditrai P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Lombard House 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg Prabha Devi Mumbai 40025, Through Branch Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Claimant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Driver and Owner : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 06.11.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Dongargarh to the Court 3 of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.14/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant in an injury case. 3. MAC No.1269/2018 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation as well as fastening of liability as also breach of policy conditions whereas MAC No.1193/2018 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, on 24.02.2017, at about 12:45 a.m., the claimant was travelling from Lal Bahadur Nagar to Baniyatola, Chhuriya, as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310, which was being driven by non-applicant No. 3, to meet her relative. A motorcycle TVS Star bearing No. CG-08-V-5671 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), coming from Chichola towards Lal Bahadur Nagar and driven by non-applicant No. 1, struck the claimant near Kamala Agro Industries at Lal Bahadur Nagar. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The ankle of her right leg was shattered, and the bone below the knee was fractured in multiple places. 5. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the Hospital at Chhuriya for first aid. Owing to the seriousness of her condition, she was referred to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, 4 where she remained admitted from 24.02.2017 to 26.02.2017. Thereafter, due to inadequate treatment, she was admitted in Shri Ram Hospital, Rajnandgaon on 27.02.2017, where her leg was plastered and operated upon. She remained hospitalized there until 03.03.2017. Thus, the claimant underwent treatment as an indoor patient for about 15 days. 6. After recovering from injuries, the sole claimant has filed claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 48,92,000/- from the non-applicants. 7. In their reply, Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 had denied the claimant’s allegations and contended that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 3, the husband of the claimant, who was driving motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310. It was alleged that in order to avoid registration of a criminal case against him, a false case was lodged against non-applicant No. 1. It was further stated that non- applicant No. 3 alone was responsible for the accident, and if the claimant suffered injuries, they were on account of his negligence. On the date of the accident, the said motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 5; therefore, if any compensation was awarded, non-applicant No. 5 would be liable to satisfy the award. Hence, the claim petition deserved to be dismissed. 8. In their reply, Non-applicants No. 3 and 4 had stated that non- applicant No. 3 had been riding motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310, 5 owned by non-applicant No. 4, at a moderate speed, with the claimant seated pillion, while going to Baniyatola, Chhuriya, to visit relatives. It was alleged that Non-applicant No. 1, riding the offending vehicle struck their motorcycle near Kamala Agro Industries, causing the accident. They had pleaded that the claimant’s assessment of compensation was arbitrary and excessive. It was submitted that non-applicant No. 3 held a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and that the vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No. 5. Therefore, in case the claimant succeeded in establishing her claim, non- applicant No. 5 alone would be liable, and non-applicants No. 3 and 4 deserved to be exonerated from liability. 9. In the reply filed by non-applicant No. 5, the claim was denied, and it was contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. The driver of motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that, besides the claimant, three other persons were travelling on the said motorcycle, which constituted a clear violation of the policy conditions. Therefore, the claim against non-applicant No. 5 was not maintainable. 10. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,94,199/- as compensation along with interest @ 6 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e. non-applicants No.3 to 5. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs 15, 16 and 25 of the impugned award, had recorded categorical findings holding that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of respondent No. 2 – Gaindlal Rajak (in the present appeal) and respondent No. 4 – Kamta, who were respectively driving motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-V-5671 and motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-AB-1310 at the time of the incident. It was thus clearly established on the basis of the evidence on record that both the drivers contributed to the occurrence of the accident. However, despite recording such findings of contributory negligence, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to fasten the entire liability for payment of compensation solely upon respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, i.e., the driver, owner and insurer of motorcycle No.CG-08-AB-1310. Learned counsel argued that this approach of the Tribunal is contrary to law, arbitrary, and unsustainable, inasmuch as once contributory negligence on the part of both drivers was established, the Tribunal was required to apportion the liability between the vehicles involved in accordance with their respective degrees of negligence. 7 12. It was further contended that fastening the entire liability only upon respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, despite a clear finding of involvement and negligence of the driver of motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671, amounts to a patent misapplication of law and results in an unjust burden being placed upon the insurer of motorcycle No. CG-08- AB-1310. Learned counsel thus urged that the impugned award suffers from serious infirmity and warrants interference to the extent of correcting the erroneous fastening of liability. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein establishing negligence of the offending vehicle is a sine qua non for awarding compensation. It is contended that after recording a categorical finding that no offence was registered against respondent No. 4, the Tribunal nevertheless fastened the liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that the claimant had utterly failed to prove any negligence on the part of respondent No. 4, and in the absence of such proof, the claim petition itself was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Act and ought to have been dismissed. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a patent error in fastening liability upon the insurer without there being any foundational finding of negligence against respondent No. 4. 13. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not assign any cogent or legally sustainable reasons for fastening liability upon 8 the appellant-company, particularly when both the claimant as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 had specifically pleaded that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. Despite the oral and documentary evidence available on record supporting this plea, the Tribunal inexplicably fastened liability upon the appellant, which, according to learned counsel, is perverse, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel further submits that in paragraph 16 of the impugned award, the Tribunal itself recorded a finding of contributory negligence between the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident. However, despite such a clear finding, the Tribunal failed to apportion even 50% of the liability upon respondents No. 2 and 3, which runs contrary to the settled principles of law governing contributory negligence. This omission, it is urged, renders the award unsustainable. Lastly, it is contended that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and warrants suitable reduction, as the Tribunal has awarded amounts that are excessive, unjustified, and not supported by the evidence on record. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner of the vehicle (respondents No. 3 and 4) submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, who was driving motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671. 9 It is contended that respondent No. 3 was driving motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310 at a moderate speed, strictly observing traffic rules, and that the claimant was travelling as a lawful pillion rider. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the claimant and other witnesses, coupled with the police papers including FIR, charge-sheet, and site map, clearly establish that it was the negligent act of respondent No. 2 alone which resulted in the accident. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 held a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, the vehicle was duly registered and roadworthy, and all documents including insurance were in force on the relevant date. Therefore, no breach of policy conditions can be attributed to respondents No. 3 and 4. Since there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, no liability could have been fastened upon the driver or owner of motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310. 16. Learned counsel asserts that the Tribunal, despite recording a finding on contributory negligence, erroneously fastened liability upon driver, owner, insurer of motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310. It is submitted that even assuming contributory negligence, the liability ought to have been apportioned between both vehicles and not placed exclusively upon respondents No. 3 and 4. Therefore, the driver and owner contend that the entire liability ought to be shifted to respondent No. 2 alone, or in the alternative, apportioned strictly in accordance with the degree of negligence proved from the record. 10 17. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore warrants interference by this Court. It is respectfully submitted that the compensation awarded is not commensurate with the evidence on record and the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, the appeal filed by the claimant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 19. First, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the insurance company being MAC No.1269/2018. 20. From perusal of paragraphs 11 to 16 of the impugned award, it transpires that the Claims Tribunal primarily relied upon the criminal case records and the oral testimony of the claimant and other witnesses in order to determine the manner in which the accident occurred. The Tribunal noted that, in connection with the said accident, a report had been lodged by non-applicant No. 3 at Chhuriya Police Station, pursuant to which Crime No. 164/2017 was registered against non-applicants No. 1 and 2, alleging that respondent No. 1, by driving motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671 in a rash and negligent manner, had struck the motorcycle No. CG-08- AB-1310, on which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. 11 21. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant had produced various criminal case documents, including the Final Report (Ex. P-1), FIR (Ex. P-2), Rural Complaint (Ex. P-3), Crime Details Form (Ex. P-4), Seizure Memo (Ex. P-5), Arrest Memo of Gaindlal (Ex. P-6), and interrogation statement of Nirmala Sahu (Ex. P-7). From these documents, the Tribunal recorded a finding that respondent No. 1, namely Gaindlal Rajak, had been booked under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving his motorcycle No. CG-08-V- 5671 negligently and hitting motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310. A charge-sheet had also been filed under Sections 146/196 and 3/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671. 22. The Tribunal also took into consideration the evidence of NAW-1, Deepak Soni, who was working as a legal assistant with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Raipur. He stated that the motorcycle owned by non-applicant No. 4 had been duly insured with non-applicant No. 5, but no criminal case had been registered against the driver of the insured vehicle, namely non- applicant No. 3. On this basis, the Tribunal observed that the documents on record prima facie showed that the accident had not occurred due to any fault attributable to the insured vehicle. 23. The Tribunal then adverted to the testimony of the claimant herself, who consistently stated that the accident occurred solely 12 due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 3. Her version was supported by PW-4, Suraj Sahu, who deposed that on 24.02.2017 he and his sister were travelling from Lal Bahadur Nagar towards Chichola when, at about 12:45 p.m., the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction, driven by non- applicant No. 1, collided with motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1310, which was being driven at high speed and carelessly by non- applicant No. 3, causing the claimant to fall and sustain grievous injuries. The Tribunal noted that this witness largely withstood cross-examination, and although he admitted certain suggestions, his overall testimony indicating negligence on the part of non- applicant No. 3 remained substantially unshaken. 24. The Tribunal ultimately observed that the documentary evidence, coupled with the oral depositions, revealed that the accident had occurred due to the careless and negligent driving of both non- applicant No. 1, who was driving motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671, and non-applicant No. 3, who was driving motorcycle No. CG-08- AB-1310. Accordingly, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident resulted from the joint and contributory negligence of both the said vehicles and concluded on issue No. 1 that the accident was proved to have occurred due to the combined negligence of both non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 3. 25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, and upon careful perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal, this 13 Court finds that the primary issue which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the entire liability upon non-applicants No. 3, 4 and 5, despite having itself recorded a clear finding of contributory negligence between the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. 26. A close scrutiny of paragraphs 11 to 16 of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal, upon due appreciation of the FIR (Ex. P- 2), Final Report (Ex. P-1), crime details (Ex. P-4), seizure memo (Ex. P-5), and the oral testimonies of the claimant and eyewitness PW-4 Suraj Sahu, categorically held that the accident occurred due to the joint negligence of: non-applicant No. 1, Gaindlal Rajak, driver of motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671, and non-applicant No. 3, driver of vehicle No. CG-08-AB-1310. 27. The finding of contributory negligence is thus not only supported by the documentary evidence but also stands corroborated by unimpeached oral testimony. 28. Once the Tribunal held that the accident resulted from contributory negligence, the natural and legal consequence was that the liability ought to have been apportioned equally between both sets of tortfeasors. However, the Tribunal proceeded to saddle the entire liability upon non-applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 (driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG-08-AB-1310), which is wholly inconsistent with its own findings and contrary to settled principles governing claims under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14 29. It is trite that in a claim under Section 166, negligence is the foundational requirement. When the claimant’s own evidence, supported by police papers, establishes that both vehicles were being driven rashly and negligently, it is not permissible to burden only one party with the entire compensation. The Tribunal’s approach in this regard is therefore perverse, legally untenable, and warrants modification. 30. Upon independent evaluation of the entire material on record, this Court affirms the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both drivers. However, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal regarding exclusive liability of non-applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 31. Consequently, the liability to satisfy the awarded compensation shall stand apportioned equally (50:50) in the following manner: • Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of motorcycle No. CG-08-V-5671, shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy 50% of the compensation; and • Non-applicants No. 3 and 4 along with the appellant- Insurance Company who is non-applicant No.5 before the Claims Tribunal, being the driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG-08-AB-1310, shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the remaining 50% of the compensation. 15 32. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimant being MAC No.1193/2018. 33. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the claimant asserted that the claimant suffered multiple injuries including fractures to her right leg and head. Though her statement could not be fully corroborated in cross-examination, the medical documents (Ex. P-7 and P-8) substantiate the injuries and her referral to the Medical College, Rajnandgaon. 34. Dr. Y.K. Tiwari (PW-3), a member of the District Medical Board, deposed that the claimant had compound and comminuted fractures with signs of post-traumatic arthritis, and was issued a disability certificate (Ex. P-47) assessing 40% disability of the limb, though functional disability for the whole body was rightly taken by the Tribunal as 10% permanent disability. 35. Regarding income, as the claimant failed to prove her claimed daily earning, the Tribunal adopted the notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month as well as considering her age (38–40 years) and applying multiplier 16, the Tribunal assessed loss of future income based on 10% disability. Medical bills of Rs.1,02,799/- were accepted, and reasonable amounts were awarded for attendant, diet and transportation and accordingly, the Tribunal computed total compensation of Rs.1,94,199/- in favour of the claimant. 16 36. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, oral evidence, medical records, and the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded to the injured claimant warrants suitable enhancement. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries, including fractures, requiring prolonged treatment and causing permanent functional disability. The impact of such injuries on her day-to-day activities and earning capacity cannot be ignored. 37. At the same time, the evidence amply establishes that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles involved. The finding of joint negligence, recorded by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the FIR, charge-sheet, eyewitness testimony, and other contemporaneous material, calls for no interference and stands affirmed. 38. In view of the foregoing circumstances, and keeping in mind the settled principles governing assessment of just compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court considers it appropriate to grant an enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the injured claimant. This enhancement is justified to ensure that the compensation awarded is fair, reasonable and commensurate with the nature of injuries, period of treatment, 17 pain and suffering, and the functional disability assessed by the Medical Board. 39. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal filed by the claimant being MAC No.1193/2018 is allowed in part and the claimant shall further entitled to Rs.50,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 40. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company being MAC No.1269/2018 is allowed in part to the extent of modifying the apportionment of liability to 50% each. Any excess amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company shall be liable to be adjusted or refunded, in accordance with law. 41. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 42. Since both vehicles contributed to the occurrence of the accident, the entire amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal as well as the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall also follow the same apportionment of liability as 50 : 50. Accordingly, the drivers and owners of the both the vehicles as well as insurance company shall remain jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation in equal proportion, i.e., 50% each within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 18 43. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment for information and due compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh