1 2026:CGHC:2637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1161 of 2023  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Divisional Office, Vidhansabha Road, Shivmangal Bhawan, Pandhri, Raipur, Post- Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04-M S- 5723). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Duleshwari Bai W/o Late Omprakash Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Seldeep, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 2. Khemlata Nishad D/o Late Omprakash Nishad Aged About 13 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Duleshwari Bai Wife Of Late Omprakash Nishad, R/o Village - Seldeep, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 3. Mukesh Kumar Nishad S/o Late Omprakash Nishad Aged About 9 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Duleshwari Bai Wife Of Late Omprakash Nishad, R/o Village - Seldeep, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 4. Smt. Bhagwantin Bai W/o Itwari Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Seldeep, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 5. Itwari Ram Nishad S/o Punitram Nishad Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Seldeep, District- Dhamtari, C.G. 6. Heeralal S/o Budhuram Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Banjrang Chowk, Seldeep, District - Dhamtari , C.G. (Driver Of Motorcycle No. C.G.- 04- M S – 5723) 7. Netram Nishad S/o Bhagwani Ram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Banjrang Chowk, Seldeep, District - Dhamtari , C.G. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G.- 04- M S - 5723) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Claimants For Respondents No. 6 and 7 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01 .2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.20 16:38:53 +0530 2 1. The Insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability part against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 62/2022 dated 18.05.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,99,480/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Om Prakash Nishad. 2. The facts in brief are that on 23.01.2022 at around 7:00 pm the bicycle of the deceased Om Prakash Nishad was dashed by the motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 MS 5723, resultantly, he sustained injuries and died during course of treatment. The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 33 years and earing Rs. 500/- per day. The driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and denied averments. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award impugned was passed. 3. Mr. Kushwaha would argue that the deceased met with an accident on 23.01.2022 and died on 24.01.2022, whereas, the FIR was registered on 16.03.2022. He would submit that the owner of the vehicle is near relation of the deceased, and therefore, he implanted the vehicle. He would contend that the alleged eye witness, namely, Puran Lal Sahu did not make complaint before the police authority with regard to accident. He would contend that photograph was clicked by him, but it was not produced before the police authorities and he disclosed this fact first time before the learned Tribunal though the deceased was in his acquaintance. He would submit that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle and the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect and fastened liability with the 3 Insurance Company. He would pray to allow this appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appearing for the claimants would submit that merg-intimation was registered on 02.02.2022 and after merg enquiry, FIR was registered. He would contend that an investigation was conducted by police and after its completion final report was filed against the driver of the offending motorbike. He would further submit that the driver and owner as well as the Insurance Company failed to make any complaint before the superior police authorities against seizure of vehicle and registration of FIR. He would also submit that the Insurance Company failed to prove false implication before the learned Tribunal by leading evidence. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the deceased met with an accident on 24.01.2022. Om Prakash Nishad died on 24.01.2022 and merg initmation was registered on 02.02.2022. The police registered FIR after merg enquiry on 16.03.2022 against driver of unknown vehicle. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statement of eye-witness, Puran Lal Sahu, who stated that he witnessed the accident, and thereafter, offending vehicle was seized and final report was submitted before the competent Criminal Court. The driver and owner as well as Insurance Company failed to make any complaint before the superior police authorities against seizure of the offending vehicle, registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet. 7. Dureshwari Nishad (AW/1) repeated the contents of the claim petition. In cross examination, this witness remained consistent. 8. Puran Lal Sahu is an eye-witness. He stated that on 23.01.2022 at around 4 7.00 pm he was going towards village Bhavermara and he witnessed the accident. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the deceased was his relation. He admitted the fact that he was in acquaintance with the rider of the motorbike prior to accident. In cross- examination, there is no material to infer that he did not witness the incident. The Insurance Company failed to examine any witness. The driver and owner examined Netram Nishad (NAW/1), who proved Insurance policy, RC book and driving license of rider of the motorbike. 9. 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 5 us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, 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”. 10. In the investigation, the police found that the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 MS 5723 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the bicycle of the deceased. Involvement of vehicle in accident is the finding of fact and the appellant/Insurance company failed to prove contrary. 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