1 2025:CGHC:58203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1086 of 2020  The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Office M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) (Insurance Co.) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Roopa Sahu Wd/o. Late Khamman Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years Resident At Village Chikhalputi, Post Dudhgaon, Tahsil And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Village Chulhapathara P.S.And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 2. Vinay Sahu S/o. Late Khamman Lal Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Smt. Roopa Sahu (Mother) Resident At Village Chikhalputi, Post Dudhgaon, Tahsil And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Village Chulhapathara P.S.And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 3. Miss Kunika D/o. Late Khamman Lal Sahua Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Smt. Roopa Sahu (Mother) Resident At Village Chikhalputi, Post Dudhgaon, Tahsil And District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Village Chulhapathara P.S.And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 4. Seva Ram S/o. Late Bhagwani Ram Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o. Village Chulhapathara, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) Claimants 5. Smt. Punaibai W/o Sevaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Chulhapathara, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) Claimants 6. Lakesh Kumar Thakur S/o. Chain Singh Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o. Village Tegnabarpara, Post Sonaidongari, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Vehicle) 7. Keshavlal S/o. Tannuram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o. Ward No. 9, Titurgahan, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Company For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.12.03 16:37:45 +0530 2 Order on Board 01.12 .2025 1. The Insurance company/appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod passed in Claim Case No. 98/2018 dated 23.12.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 64,54,820/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Khamman Lal Sahu. 2. Facts in brief are that on 08.07.2018, when Khamman Lal Sahu was returning his home from duty on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 24 6962, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JE 0447 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased in front of Forest Office, Mardapal Tiraha, consequently, Khamman Lal Sahu sustained injuries and during course of treatment died. A crime number 171/2018 was registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The claimants pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years and he was Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police department and earning RS. 46,524/-(Gross). They claimed a sum of Rs. 1,17,75,000/-. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply and denied the contents. They pleaded that the deceased while riding his motorcycle lost control and fell down, resultantly, sustained injuries. They further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 4. The Insurance Company filed reply and took plea that initially an FIR was lodged against unknown Truck, but in final report was filed against Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JE 0447, though said vehicle was not 3 involved in the accident at all. The learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 5. Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate would submit that an FIR was lodged by one Suneel Thakur on 08.07.2018 against driver of unknown Truck. He would further contend that in merg-intimation and application of postmortem, registration number of the offending Truck was not disclosed. He would also submit that on the basis of statements of eye-witness/Vicky Nishad, the police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Truck on 05.09.2018. He would contend that Vicky Nishad was examined by the Insurance Company as NAW/3-1. In para 1 of his evidence, he has given description of offending vehicle. In para 2, he stated that he could not see the registration number of the Truck and when he returned from Visakhapatnam his statement was recorded by the police. In para 3, he stated that he never disclosed registration number of offending Truck to the police. In cross examination, this witness admitted the fact that statement was recorded as per his version. Mr. Tulsyan, Advocate would submit that there is no evidence on record to infer that the offending Truck was involved in the accident, and therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set-aside. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chamundeswari and Ors. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596, wherein it is held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van and PW/3 was also traveling in the very car and later on he gave statement before the police and was examined as eye-witness. It is held that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be 4 given weightage over the contents of the FIR, para 8 is reproduced herein- below :- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW–1 as well as PW–3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.” 6. I have heard Mr. Tulsyan at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. On 08.07.2018, the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending Truck, resultantly, he lost his life. An FIR was lodged on 08.07.2018 itself against driver of unknown Truck. It is not a case where on instance of eye-witness, an FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The police conducted investigation, and thereafter, seized the Truck on 04.09.2018. As argued by Mr. Tulsyan, it appears that statement of Vicky Nishad (NAW3-1) was recorded by the police, which was foundation of charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Truck, but the said statement has not been placed on record by the Insurance Company. The final report would reveal that the driver of the offending Truck, namely, Lakesh Kumar Thakur took the deceased to the hospital, 5 and thereafter absconded. The filing of final report is not based on the statement of Vicky Nishad (NAW3-1); therefore, the contention made by Mr. Tulsyan cannot be accepted. 8. 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, 6 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”.” 9. In the investigation, the police found that the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JE 0447 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Involvement of vehicle in accident is the finding of fact and the appellant/Insurance company failed to prove contrary. 10. In the matter of Chamundeswari (supra), the FIR was lodged by the eye- witness, and later on, he deviated from his earlier statement; therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the evidence which is recorded before the learned Tribunal has to be given weightage over contents of the FIR. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of cited case. 11. 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