1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1544 of 2017 1 - Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office Manendragarh Raod, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikaspur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Surajmuni W/o Late Durgesh Yadav Aged About 22 Years Occupation Housework, R/o Gram Sabag Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samti Kusmi , District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Niranjan Yadav S/o Late Durgesh Yadav, Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Surajmuni, R/o Gram Sabag Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samti Kusmi , District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Chinta Devi Yadav, W/o Kapil Dev Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Sabag Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samti Kusmi , District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kapil Dev Yadav S/o Late Jokhan Yadav Aged About 46 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Gram Sabag Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samti Kusmi , District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Abhijeet Singh S/o Omprakash R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur Sarguja Chhattisgarh , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. MAC No. 1545 of 2017 1 - Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Vishwanath Yadav S/o Rampreet Yadav, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Agriculture, At R/o Gram Indripath, Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Premshila Yadav, W/o Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Gram Indripath, Thana, Samri, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Abhijeet Singh, S/o Omprakash R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh Owner Cum Driver , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 3 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. The insurance company has instituted these appeals challenging the award dated 26.7.2017, by which the learned Claims Tribunal adjudicated and unequivocally held the insurance company liable for the payment of compensation. In doing so, the insurance company contests both the findings of fact and the conclusions of law rendered by the Tribunal, asserting that the determination of liability in the said award was erroneous, and seeks judicial intervention to set aside or modify the order directing it to discharge the claimed compensation. 2. Brief facts of the cases, are that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 (claimants), namely the wife and children of the deceased, seeking compensation for the death of Durgesh Yadav. The claimants contended that on 10/12/2016 at about 8:15 AM, the deceased, Durgesh Yadav, was driving a truck bearing registration no. AP 31 4 TW 7949, returning from Gadwa to Semri along with a cleaner after unloading bauxite. Near Golphula River, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 15 ZD 4323, driving in a rash and negligent manner, collided head-on with the truck, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased, who ultimately died. The claimants stated that the deceased, aged about 25 years, was employed as a truck driver earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, and they were wholly dependent on him, accordingly, they filed the claim seeking compensation of Rs. 19,12,144/- on various heads. The non-applicant No. 1, in response, denied all allegations and contended that the deceased himself was negligent, rendering the claim under Section 166 of the Act untenable. The Tribunal had earlier rejected permission under Section 170 of the Act vide order dated 24/07/2017 on mechanical grounds, as the vehicle owner had contested the case. The appellant, i.e., the insurance company, also filed its reply disputing the averments in the claim, asserting that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further contended that both vehicles were involved in a head-on collision, and the truck driver was equally responsible. Moreover, the claimants had not made the owner and insurer of the truck (No. AP 31 TW 7949) parties to the claim, rendering the application under Section 166 non- maintainable. Immediately after the accident, an FIR (No. 53/2016) was lodged by Dev Sai Baghat, alleging that the truck 5 driver was negligent and collided with the Hywa vehicle, causing the death of its driver. The police subsequently investigated and filed a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., which indicated negligence on the part of the truck driver. Despite these facts and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal held the driver of the Hywa (No. CG 15 ZD 4323) solely negligent and fastened the entire liability on the appellant, prompting this appeal on the stated grounds, without prejudice to each other. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, in light of the breach of the insurance policy, the insurance company ought to be absolved from any liability to pay compensation. He further argues that the present case involves contributory negligence on the part of both vehicles involved in the collision, namely the Hywa bearing registration No. C.G.15/CZ-4323 and the Truck bearing registration No. AP.31/TW-7949, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in law by attributing composite negligence solely to the Hywa vehicle. In support of this position, he emphasizes that, having regard to the factual matrix and surrounding circumstances of the incident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, and accordingly, liability should be apportioned between both vehicles on the basis of their respective degrees of negligence. Consequently, both the Hywa and the Truck should be held jointly and severally responsible for compensation in accordance with the extent of negligence attributable to each vehicle. 6 4. The concerned respondents have strongly supported the conclusions reached by the Tribunal, contending that the Tribunal, after a careful and comprehensive consideration of all relevant aspects and circumstances, justly and appropriately attributed liability to the offending vehicle, Hywa bearing registration number C.G.15/CZ-4323, and they further submit that there exists no demonstrable illegality, procedural irregularity, or perversity in the Tribunal’s findings, thereby asserting that the present appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is consequently liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that from the side of insurance company no evidence was recorded to show contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles. From the evidence of the witnesses it was the composite negligence of the offending vehicle i.e. Hywa bearing No. C.G.15/CZ-4323 and there was no any evidence to show that it was contributory negligence of both the vehicles. 7. Accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal after due consideration has rightly fastened the liability upon the offending vehicle i.e. Hywa bearing No. C.G.15/CZ-4323 which was insured by the present appellant/insurance company as such I do not consider to be a fit case to interefere the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly considered the relevant aspect and has rightly fastened the liability upon the 7 insurance company of the offending vehicle Hywa bearing No. C.G.15/CZ-4323 as the vehicle was duly insured as the driver was having appropriate license to drive the offending vehicle. 8. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat