1 2025:CGHC:60988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1359 of 2023 Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited R/o. Guru Nanak Nagar Non-Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o. Late Mahesh Singh, Aged About 25 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. 2 - Sunil Singh S/o. Late Mahesh Singh, Aged About 6 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 To 5 Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi. 3 - Ku. Shivani Singh D/o. Late Mahesh Singh, Aged About 4 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 To 5 Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi. 4 - Semvati Singh D/o. Late Mahesh Singh, Aged About 14 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 To 5 Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.12.16 15:58:41 +0530 2 5 - Arjun Singh S/o. Late Mahesh Singh Aged About 13 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 To 5 Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi. 6 - Tej Pratap Singh S/o. Narendra Singh, Aged About 50 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. 7 - Fhul Bai W/o. Tej Pratap Singh Aged About 48 Years Resident - Puraina Bhilai 3, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh And Village Gram Panchayat Mata Ward No. 6, Karhitola, Gajri, Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. 8 - Ashok Das S/o. Ghanshyam Das, Aged About 39 Years Resident - Near Airtel Office, Ward No. 9, House No. 100 Thana Telibandha, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver) 9 - Umesh Sahu S/o. Manlal Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Resident - Tatibandha Raipur Thana - Amanaka, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal with Mr. P. Dutta, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 7 : Mr. Tapan K. Chandra, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.12.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 29.04.2023 passed by the learned VI Additional Motor Accident 3 Claims Tribunal, Durg in MACT Case No. 21/2020, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, would submit that accident had taken place on account of collision between the two vehicles, therefore, it is a case of negligence on part of the deceased driver also, therefore, the insurance company is not responsible to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Tapan K. Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7/ claimants would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the appellant/ insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. The appellant/insurance company has taken a plea that it is a case of head on collision, therefore, the deceased driver was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. However, this fact has not been proved as Sachin Kumar Mehra (DW-1) officer of the insurance company has been examined but he has stated that 4 accident had occurred due to head on collision of two vehicles, but he has also clearly stated that he was not the eye-witness, as he was not present on the place of accident and no other officer of the insurance company was present on the spot. As such, it has not been proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver. Therefore, plea of contributory negligence has not been established. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge