-1- 2025:CGHC:23884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 450 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Office Geetanjali Bhawan Main Road Old Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh., Represented Thorugh Its Asstt. Manager T.P.Hub, Divisional Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Kaleshram S/o Late Kanshiram Aged About 55 Years 2 - Phoolbai Patel W/o Shri Kaleshram Aged About 48 Years 3 - Rupesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Kaleshram Aged About 18 Years All R/o Village Baridih, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimants) 4 - Hemlal S/o Ramayan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gidhori, Dhanuharpara, Police Station Urga. Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver) 5 - Dinesh Modi S/o NP Modi R/o Near Bajrang Talkies, Main Road, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner) ... Respondent(s) ______________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Resp No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 28/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.13 10:23:30 +0530 -2- “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging award dated 27.11.2018 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G) vide award dated 27.11.2018 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 86 of 2017. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 03.09.2017 at about 8.30 pm, Golu Patel alias Maghilal was going from village Urga to village Akhrapali with his friend on a motorcycle. A Metador bearing registration No. CG 12 Z.B. 0149 was going ahead of them. On the way, driver of the motorcycle asked the Metador driver for giving them side. When driver of Metador did not give side, Golu alias Maghilal tried to stop the Metador, driver of the Metador drove it more speedily and negligently and overturned the vehicle in a field near Sukhsagar pond Kudarmal, due to which Golu alias Maghilal got crushed under the Metador and died on spot. On the date of accident deceased was about 22 years of age, an able bodied person, was working as Mason and earning 9000/- per month to support himself and his family. Claimants claimed for total compensation of Rs. 28,62,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Respondent No. 4 & 5/non-applicant No. 1 & 2-driver and owner of the offending metador submitted their reply to the claim application denying all the pleadings made in the application and it was further pleaded that, the deceased was dependent on his parents and was having no monthly income. There was no collision between the motorcycle and the offending Metador. While trying to overtake the Metador, driver of motorcycle could not control his vehicle and met with an accident. The deceased met with an accident due to -3- his own negligence. On the date of accident, offending Metador vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3- insurance company and hence, the liability, if any, to compensate the applicants-claimants would be of non-applicant No. 3/ insurance company. 4. Appellant/ non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that the amount of compensation has been sought in an exaggerated manner by the applicants. On the date of accident, deceased did not possess valid driving license to drive a two-wheeler. Non-applicant No 1/ driver of offending Metador was not possessed with a valid and effective driving license. As there was breach of policy conditions, non-applicant No.3 would not be liable to pay amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that deceased Golu alias Maghilal died in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending Metador by non-applicant No.1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 10,88,400/- as total compensation and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant/non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in FIR lodged by Devendra Gupta in presence of witness Chandprakash Sahu, there is specific mention that at the time of accident deceased Golu has boarded the matador from driver side and tried to stop vehicle, upon which, vehicle turned turtle and Golu came under the vehicle . It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that copy of FIR and final report is filed by claimants in support of their claim -4- application as Ex.P-3 and Ex. P-1. Document Ex.P-3 and Ex. P-1 is filed by claimants and therefore they will not be permitted to turn around and make out a new case. He places reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Premlata Shukla & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 476. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence brought on record by respective parties has allowed the claim application and awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. Appellant- insurance company had not examined any witness to prove the ground as raised in this appeal, before the Claims Tribunal. He contended that witness AW2 who at the time of accident was present on the spot has clearly denied the suggestion that deceased boarded the running matador from its driver side and while trying to stop the matador it overturned, but has clearly stated that due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, it overturned upon deceased Golu. He also submits that document prepared by police during course of investigation is to be proved in accordance with law in which appellant -insurance company has utterly failed as they have neither examined police officer who registered the FIR nor lodger of FIR namely Devenra Gupta. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 4. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that claimants in their claim application pleaded that deceased along with his friend were travelling on motorcycle and while so, when they tried to overtake matador, driver of the matador did not give side and drove the matador- offending vehicle rashly and thereafter overturned it in the agricultural field near Sukhsagar pond, -5- Kudurmal. Claimants in support of pleadings made in claim application have examined Kalesh Ram as AW1 and Chandprakash Sahu as AW2. Kalesh Ram AW1 is father of deceased. He was not the witnesses to accident. Chandraprakash AW2 is the eyewitness to the accident. In his evidence, he stated that upon shouting, driver of matador offending vehicle i.e. non- applicant No.1 stopped the vehicle . Deceased was standing near the vehicle and started talking with driver of offending vehicle however due to negligent act of driver of offending vehicle, it overturned in agricultural field. This witness was extensively cross-examined by counsel for non-applicants No. 1 & 2 and counsel for non-applicant No.3 . He denied the suggestion that deceased Golu forcefully boarded the offending vehicle outside the cabin of driver side and started assaulting non-applicant No.1. Non-applicants No. 1 & 3 have made statement before Tribunal that they do not want to examine any witness and accordingly their right to lead evidence was closed. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 & 2 of rash and negligent driving of no-applicant No.1 has held that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 and observed that FIR is only supporting evidence whereas oral evidence of AW2 before the Clams Tribunal is substantive evidence and recorded a finding that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1. 6. Appellant insurance company while challenging the award impugned has taken a plea that deceased was equally responsible for accident . Four persons were travelling on motorcycle and from contents of FIR it is appearing that deceased mounted on matador from driver side and tried to assault him. Copy of FIR is filed as Ex.P-3 wherein it is mentioned that deceased mounted on running matador towards driver side window and tried to stop the offending -6- vehicle. To prove the contents of FIR non-applicants have not examined any witness . In fact they themselves stated before the Claims Tribunal that they do not want to examine any witness . 7. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer reported in 2005 (1) MPWN 91 while considering the evidentiary value of document of criminal case in proceedings before Claims Tribunal for deciding claim case observed that “in view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of FIR in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of FIR and held as under: “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, had 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 -7- eyewitness. 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.” 9. Non-applicants have not examined any witness to prove the pleading made by them in their reply. In absence of any oral evidence, pleading made in reply or the contents of document available in record cannot be read as evidence. 10. In the case at hand, neither non-applicant No.1 /driver of offending vehicle nor the insurance company has led any evidence to prove the fact of negligence upon the deceased also. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, and fastening liability upon insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 11. In the case of Premlata Shukla (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once FIR made part of claim proceedings by making reference in claim petition, parties bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that other contents contained in rest part thereof had not been proved. In case of of Chamundeswari (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the decision in case of Premlata Shukla (supra) has observed thus:- “9. In the judgment, relied on by the appellant’s counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla , this Court has held that proof of rashness and -8- negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under Road Regulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.” 12.In the case of Chamundeswari (supra) Supreme Court has held that where the evidence of eyewitness is available there is no reason to give weightage over contents of FIR. 13.Considering the aforementioned facts of the case where the eyewitness to the accident, stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 and non-applicants have not led any evidence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal. 14.The appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen