Page No.1 2025:CGHC:19032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 511 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Rama Trade Centre Rajeev In Front Of Plaza, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..(Insurer Of Cg 10 - Ze 9051) (Non Applicant No. 3 / Insurance Company) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rukmani Dhruv Wd/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Khapari , Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh... (Claimant), 2 - Ravishankar Dhruv S/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruv Aged About 20 Years R/o Village-Khapari,Tahsil-Takhatpur,District-Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Shushma Dhruv D/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruv Aged About 17 Years Now 23 Years , R/o Village Khapari , Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., 4 - Ravindra Dhruv S/o Naresh Singh Dhruv Aged About 14 Years Now 20 Years, R/o Village Khapari , Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., 5 - Mukesh Bhardwaj S/o Atmaram Bharadwaj Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bharani, Thana Chakarbhata , Tahsil Takhatpur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of CG 10-ZE 9051) (Non Applicant No. 01)(Driver) 6 - Sachin Kumar Pandey S/o Kanti Kumar Pandey Owner R/o Village Masturi , Thana Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Cg 10- Ze 9051) (Non Applicant No. 2 ) (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 28/04/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Page No.2 the award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur(for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.630/2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal has allowed application of claimant seeking compensation and awarded sum of Rs.49,72,989/- as total compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that initially the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 was registered as Claim Case No.928/2014. In the said claim case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award dated 30.6.2017, which was put to challenge by the appellant/Insurance Company by filing MAC No.1478 of 2017 ,which came up for hearing on 10.11.2017(Annexure-A/3) and the Court while considering the ground raised in the appeal of the contributory negligence, the deceased was in drunken condition and further that the driver of both the vehicles i.e. the vehicle of the deceased and the vehicle insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, were not possessing the valid and effective driving license was raised, has found that the ground raised was not proved by adducing sufficient evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed on merits. 3. The award dated 30.6.2017 was also challenged by the claimants in MAC No.1068 of 2017. The said appeal came up for hearing on 26.3.2019(Annexure-A/2). This Court while deciding the appeal in presence of the counsel for the appellant and the Page No.3 counsel for the Insurance Company in para-6 had recorded that “No counter appeal has been filed by the respondents as submitted by learned counsel for the parties.” Thereafter, while dealing upon the appeal on merits, the High Court has set aside the award dated 26.3.2019 and remitted back case to the learned Claims Tribunal with a direction to decide the claim afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to both the parties in support of their case. After remand, the case was again considered by the learned Claims Tribunal, however, the Claim Case is renumbered as MACT No.630 of 2014 and the claim case was disposed of by the impugned award dated 31.10.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering specific evidence of Dr. Ashish Mundra(AW-2) wherein he stated that in ExP/10, it is clearly mentioned that deceased had consumed liquor. Dr. Ashish Mundra(AW-2) in his evidence has further stated that there may be possibility of occurring of the accident because of the deceased under the influence of liquor. He next contented that there was head on collision between two motorcycles which shows that there was contributory negligence therefore the amount of compensation ought to have been reduced to extent of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Driving license of drivers of two vehicles involved in the accident has not been produced before the Claims Tribunal, Page No.4 hence, there was violation of condition of the Insurance Policy. He also submits that the accident was not intimated to the insurance Company, therefore, also the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. He also contended that death of the deceased as a result of accidental injuries arising out of the accident dated 01.08.2013 is not proved. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 opposing the submissions made by counsel for appellant would submit that earlier also appellant-Insurance Company while challenging the award dated 30.6.2017 has raised almost similar grounds and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing MAC No.1478 of 2017 came to be dismissed on merits, hence, the appellant- Insurance Company is not permitted to raise the same grounds in this appeal again. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The crux of the grounds which has been raised by counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the deceased was under the influence of liquor, there was contributory negligence and the license of both the drivers have not been produced before the Claims Tribunal. 8. Perusal of Annexure-A/3 filed by the appellant along with this appeal would show that it is an order dated 10.11.2017 passed in MAC No.1478 of 2017 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rukmani Dhruv and others by this Court. This appeal was Page No.5 filed challenging the award dated 30.6.2017 in Claim Case No.928 of 2014. Para-3 & 4 of the order would mention the ground raised by the appellant-Insurance Company therein and considered by the Court, which is extracted below for ready reference:- “3. Challenge in the present appeal by the insurance company is to the quantum of compensation awarded and the liability part is also challenged as there is an element of contributory negligence which can be inferred from the factual matrix of the case so also, the deceased in the instant case was in a drunk condition at the time of accident and which further strengthened the claim for contributory negligence. The driving licence of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident was not produced and that an inference has to be drawn that they did not have an effective licence at the time of accident. 4.Perusal of record would show that the witness who has been examined on behalf of the insurance company has not been able to adduce sufficient proof before the Tribunal with which the Tribunal could have taken a different view than that has been arrived at by it. This Court therefore does not find any strong case made out by the insurance company calling for an interference with the impugned award. Further, the amount of compensation awarded also does not seem to be either exorbitant or excessive as out of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded only towards the medical expenditures incurred and only Rs.1,50,000/- is towards the pain and suffering, special diet and under other heads.” Page No.6 9. Perusal of the aforementioned extracted paras would show that all three primary and main grounds, which have been raised in this appeal, were raised by the appellant Insurance Company before this Court which were considered and turned down by recording in para-4 of the order that “the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the insurance company has not been able to adduce sufficient proof before the Tribunal with which the Tribunal could have taken a different view than that has been arrived at by it.” 10.The aforementioned order of the High Court dated 10.1.2017 was not put to challenge by the appellant insurance company any further, hence, the order became final. 11.During the course of argument learned counsel of appellant- Insurance Company has referred to the deposition of Dr. Ashish Mundra and others which was recorded in the year 2016. He has not referred any of the evidence before this Court recorded before the Claims Tribunal after remand of the case in its support i.e. after 26.03.2019. 12.In the aforementioned facts of the case the evidence which is relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court today and was considered by the High Court in its order dated 10.11.2017 are one of the same. According to the judicial discipline this Court cannot again reconsider the same ground on same evidence which had been considered by the High Court in an appeal filed by appellant Insurance Company challenging the Page No.7 award dated 30.6.2017 between the same parties. 13.For the foregoing discussions I am not inclined to consider the appeal filed by the Insurance Company on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha