-1- 2025:CGHC:43007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1538 of 2019 Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through The Regional Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Dealership, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Kangluram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Mohandi, Thana And Teshil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Ishwar Rao K., S/o Shri Appala Swamy, Resident Of Salur, Thana Salur, District Vijaynagaram, Andhra Pradesh 3 - Jagan Mohan M., S/o Shri Nagasunder Rao, Resident Of CM Transco, Main Road, Salur, Thana, Salur, District Vijaynagaram, Andhra Pradesh. 4 - Yashwant @ Mohan Yadav S/o Shri Punitram Yadav, R/o Gotiyardih, Thana, Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 25 /08/2025 Heard. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.07 11:25:50 +0530 -2- short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant Insurance Company (non- applicant No.3) challenging the award dated 10th May 2019 passed by learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.321 of 2014. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 06.01.2014 at 06.30 p.m., he along with Sant Kumar Bandhe were coming from Kurud in a Maximo Van No.CG-04/TA/0397. The said van was being driven by non- applicant No.4 at normal speed, On the way, driver of truck No. AP-35/T/9191 running in front of Van, drove the truck carelessly, suddenly stopped it on middle of the road near village Darba without giving any kind of signal, due to which, Van collided with it from behind and applicant/claimant sitting in the Maximo mini van suffered serious injuries including fracture of his right leg. Due to accidental injuries suffered by claimant in the accident, he claimed total sum of Rs 22,32,400/- under different heads from non-applicants. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which claimant suffered grievous injuries . Learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved; contributory negligence on the part of non-applicant No.4 (driver of Van) to the extent of 50% to be proved, held non-applicants liable to pay -3- amount of compensation, calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,39,179/-. Non-applicants 1 to 3 were held liable to pay 50% amount of compensation and non-applicant No.4 was held liable to pay 50% amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the offending truck at the time of accident was stationary and it was parked on side of road. It is the driver of Van who drove the Van rashly and negligently and dashed with stationary truck from its rear side and therefore driver of Van in which respondent No.1/claimant was travelling as passenger was sole negligent in the accident. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon appellant-insurance company to pay compensation to the extent of 50% which is erroneous in facts of case. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant would submit that two vehicles were involved in accident. Truck was negligently parked on road. Accident occurred at about 06:30 pm on 06.01.2014 and therefore learned Claims Tribunal justified in holding the driver, owner and insurer of both the vehicles liable to pay amount of compensation. He also submits that insurance company has not placed on record any evidence in proof of pleadings made in its written statement that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the truck and it was not parked negligently on the road. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. -4- 7. Respondent No. 1/claimant has filed an application specifically pleading that truck running in front of Van with considerable speed suddenly stopped on main road near village Darba due to which Van in which claimant was travelling dashed with truck from its back. He pleaded that truck was stopped suddenly by rash act. To prove pleading made in claim application, claimant has also filed documents prepared by police during course of investigation. 8. Non-applicants No.1 & 2 who are driver and owner of offending truck were proceeded ex-parte before Claims Tribunal, they have not submitted any reply to claim application. 9. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance company submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings that truck was running in front of Van and it suddenly stopped. There was breach of policy conditions as on the date of accident, driver of offending truck was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. To support the pleadings made in the claim application claimant has filed document of criminal case prepared by police including FIR and Final Report. FIR is filed as Ex.P-2 wherein it is mentioned that Van dashed with truck standing on side of road. Final report submitted by police before competent Court against driver of Van. There is specific pleading that offending vehicle was suddenly stopped on center of road which was negligent act. Insurer of truck i.e. appellant has not examined any witness to prove pleadings made in reply to claim application. In absence of any evidence brought on record, pleadings made in reply to claim application cannot be accepted as evidence of -5- appellant/non-applicant No.3/insurance company. FIR was lodged by third person and therefore the contents of FIR cannot be accepted to be gospel truth as evidence, unless and until it is proved in accordance with law by person who lodged FIR or author of FIR. There is no evidence available on record to conclude that at the time of accident, truck was parked on side of road. 10. In the aforementioned facts of case, evidence available before Claims Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, I do not find any error in finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that driver of truck was also contributory negligent in accident by parking his vehicle negligently on the road. Though time of accident shown to be at 6:30 pm, however, considering the date of accident i.e. 06.01.2014, to be a peak winter season, during that period sun sets much earlier and, therefore, prima facie it is appearing that at the time of accident, there was night. 11.For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon appellant insurance company to the extent of 50%. Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen