1 2026:CGHC:5969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 385 of 2021  Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Branch Office Raipur Ward No. 25 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) Second Floor, Simran Tower, Pandri Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Sushila Bai Kosare W/o Late Shri Radheshyam Kosare Aged About 43 Years Residing At Village Bijetala, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Devantin Kosare W/o Late Shri Ramhu Kosare Residing At Village Bijetala, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3. Akash Verma S/o Late Shri Parma Verma Residing At Village Aarsi, Police Station Bori, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Dilharan Nishad S/o Late Shri Devram Nishad Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village Aarsi, Police Station Bori, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shashwat Yechuri, Adv. on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Swapnil Thawani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 3.2.2026 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.04 10:47:45 +0530 2 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 553/2018 dated 3.12.2020, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 12,74,000/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 17.9.2018, Radheshyam Kosare was returning from Village Kheldi to Village Bodegaon on motorcycle. When he reached near Village Bodegaon, offending vehicle – Tata SUMO bearing registration No. CG-07-MB-0773 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed said motorcycle. In the accident, Radheshyam Kosare sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. 3) Claimants, who are the widow and mother of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,15,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 45 years and was earning Rs. 500/- per-day working as carpenter at a saw-mill. Insurance Company filed reply and took a specific plea that deceased himself was negligent and driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits 3 that according to Hospital Admission Ticket (Ex. P/2), deceased who was in inebriated state fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries ; Dr. Pooja Verma Patel (NAW/1) has proved this fact. He further submits that Nidhi Mishra (NAW/2), Assistant Law Officer of Insurance Company has stated in evidence that deceased himself was negligent and false FIR was lodged subsequently. He prays to set aside the award. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose. He submits that though Dr. Pooja Verma Patel stated in evidence that deceased was in inebriated condition when brought to the hospital and on his instance, statement was recorded in hospital admission ticket but eye-witness, namely, Mohan Sen (AW/2) has categorically stated that he witnessed the accident which was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. He further submits that Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove that deceased was negligent or he fell down from the motorcycle. He contends that claimant is only expected to prove the case on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt and filing of charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Dubey and Ors. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1 He further 1. AIR 2025 SC 386 4 contends that under Section 185 of MV Act, it is envisaged that for holding a person to be under influence of drug, the person should have in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg, per 100 ml, of blood detected by a breath analyzer. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Versus Beni Madhav Singh and Others passed in MAC No. 1272 of 2015. He argues that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and there is no scope for interference. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, in the hospital admission ticket it is stated that deceased himself fell down from motorcycle and he was under influence of alcohol but owner of offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company failed to prove the quantity of alcohol in blood of deceased by clinical examination. It is nowhere stated that statement was reduced into writing by the deceased himself in the hospital admission ticket and Dr. Pooja Verma Patel (NAW/1) admitted that said statement was recorded by her. Mohan Sen (AW/2), eye-witness has categorically stated that motorcycle of deceased was dashed by offending vehicle and Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to rebut such such piece of evidence. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle did not make any complaint before the superior police authorities against 5 registration of FIR, seizure of vehicle and filing of charge-sheet against him. 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others2 held that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others3 held that point of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of charge- sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. 9) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Dubey (supra) while dealing with the similar issue held as under :- 20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as follows: 2. 2023 0 AIR (SC)(Civ) 622 3. AIR 2018 SC 1900 6 “14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose.” 10) In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a