1 2025:CGHC:57177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 859 of 2024  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Second Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001,...(Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Bharti Sahu W/o Late Vijay Sahu Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.),...(Claimants) 2. Nidhi Sahu D/o Late Vijay Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Bharti Sahu, W/o Late Vijay Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) 3. Parth Sahu S/o Late Vijay Sahu Aged About 1 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Bharti Sahu, W/o Late Vijay Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) 4. Sotan Sahu S/o Shivram Sahu Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Badra W/o Sotan Sahu Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) 6. Mahesh Kumar Nishad S/o Shatruhan Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, P.S. Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.),..(Non-Applicants) 7. Wankeshwar Sahu S/o Late Gangadhar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 7, In Front Of Rest House, Bemetara, P.S., Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Company For Respondents No. 1 to 5/ : Mr. Hemchand Prajapati, Advocate holding Claimant the brief of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.26 15:01:00 +0530 2 Order on Board 25.11 .2025 1. The Insurance company/appellant has filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara passed in Claim Case No. 118/2023 dated 09.02.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 17,06,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Vijay Sahu. 2. Facts in brief are that Mahesh Kumar Nishad/driver of offending scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 M 0641 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the Activa Scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 D 0614, resultantly, deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death during course of treatment. The claimants, who are widow, two minor children and parents filed claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that the deceased aged about 25 years was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, they claimed a sum of Rs. 35,50,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company filed reply and took plea that the driver of Activa Scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 D 0614 failed to produce driving licence before learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company took plea of contributory negligence too. It was also pleaded that the claimants failed to implead the insurer of vehicle of the deceased. A specific plea was taken with regard to permit and fitness. The learned Tribunal framed issues, and thereafter, an award was passed. 4. Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company/appellant would submit that the deceased met with an accident on 21.04.2023, whereas, an FIR was lodged on 01.09.2023. He would further submit that initially an FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle and 3 after 133 days, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 25 M 0641 was implicated in the accident. He would contend that in application to conduct postmortem dated 24.04.2023, there is no whisper that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not considered these fact while fastening liability with the Insurance company. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The appellant herein/Insurance company filed reply to claim petition on 12.01.2024, whereby the contents of claim application were denied. A plea was taken that during crouse of medical examination of Vijay and Domendra @ Govinda, it was informed that an unknown vehicle dashed their scooty. It is further pleaded that no specification of the offending vehicle was narrated and the offending vehicle was seized on 27.10.2023 after 5-6 months. The Insurance company took plea of implantation of vehicle. 8. Smt. Bharti Sahu/AW/1 supported the case and repeated the contents of claim petition. In cross-examination, she remained firm. Domendra @ Govinda Sahu, who was pillion rider specifically stated that their motorcycle was dashed by offending Scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 M 0641. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm. 9. Perusal of FIR dated 01.09.2023, Crime detail form, P.M. report and further the final report filed by the Police would make it clear that the offending Scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 M 0641 dashed the Scooty of the deceased, consequently, he sustained injuries. 4 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajani Sahoo and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 599, held that the police record can be looked into to determine the question of negligence. The relevant para 8 is reproduced here-in-below:- “8. As regards the reliability of charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.,(2018) 5 SCC 656; 2018 INSC 311, held in paragraph No.27, thus : - “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge- sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal”.” 5 11. In the investigation, the police found that the driver of the offending Scooty bearing registration No. CG 25 M 0641 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the deceased, these are the findings of facts and the appellant/Insurance company failed to prove the contrary. 12. Taking into consideration the documents placed on record, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant