1 2026:CGHC:5494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 537 of 2018 1 - Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory Sajit Ku. Ray, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ii Floor, Jeet Towers, G.E.Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Nanbai W/o Lt. Ramsharan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Barbandh, Barbaspur, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Anesh Singh S/o Lt. Ramsharan Singh Aged About 17 Years R/o Barbandh, Barbaspur, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Umesh Singh S/o Lt. Ramsharan Singh Aged About 14 Years R/o Barbandh, Barbaspur, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Udesh Singh S/o Lt. Ramsharan Singh Aged About 11 Years R/o Barbandh, Barbaspur, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Claimants No. 1 To 4), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Jagnarayan S/o Jagdev Aged About 28 Years R/o Umjhar, Post Nagar, P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Chatur Singh S/o Manohar Poya Aged About 62 Years R/o Post Nagar, P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellant :Mr. Shekhar Rao Sahab Amit, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 04.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 43/2015. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 20,42,000/- under various heads on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. It was pleaded that on 13.07.2015 at about 07:30 PM, the deceased was sitting on his agricultural farm when Non-applicant No.1 arrived at the spot driving a tractor in a rash and negligent manner. It was alleged that due to such negligent driving, the tractor crossed the boundary of the farm, as a result of which the deceased came under the tractor, which overturned and rolled over him. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. According to the claimants, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and 3 negligent driving of the tractor by Non-applicant No.1, causing immense mental pain and agony to the claimants besides serious financial loss due to the untimely death of the deceased. It was further averred by the claimants that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and was earning approximately Rs. 12,000/- per month at the time of the accident. However, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said income. The age of the deceased was stated to be about 52 years at the time of death. The claimants also asserted that the incident was duly reported to the police, pursuant to which a criminal case was registered. It was stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was arrested and was produced before the concerned Magistrate, thereby supporting the version of the claimants regarding the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the allegations made in the claim petition. They contended that the accident did not occur due to rash or negligent driving and further pleaded that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. It was also averred that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Non-applicant No.3 and, therefore, in case of any liability, the same was to be indemnified by the insurance company. The present appellant, Insurance Company, also filed its written statement rebutting the averments made in the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured as a miscellaneous 4 vehicle and no premium had been paid for any person sitting on the engine or any unauthorised passenger. It was contended that the deceased was not a third party covered under the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claim. It was further averred that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, amounting to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant also disputed the alleged income of the deceased on the ground that no proof whatsoever had been produced by the claimants. Despite the objections raised by the present appellant, the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, framed and decided the issues holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Non-applicant No.1 resulting in the death of the deceased; that the offending vehicle was insured with the present appellant and there was no breach of policy conditions; and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,31,000/- jointly and severally from the non-applicants, along with other reliefs and costs as mentioned in paragraph 30 of the award. Aggrieved by the said findings and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and 5 circumstances of the case. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed material illegality while determining and awarding compensation and has acted erroneously in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. The Tribunal failed to apply the settled principles of law governing adjudication of claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel contends that the judgment of award and order of compensation is based on surmises and conjectures rather than on cogent and reliable evidence available on record. The findings have been recorded without proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, rendering the award legally infirm. It is also submitted that the impugned award suffers from material irregularity and illegality, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The learned Tribunal overlooked vital aspects of the case, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. Material contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses have been completely ignored, which has vitiated the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is specifically argued that the learned Tribunal failed to ascertain that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Such absence of a valid licence constituted a clear breach of the terms and 6 conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore, the appellant– Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from liability. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was sitting on the engine of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. No premium was paid for covering any person other than the driver of the vehicle, and the deceased was an unauthorised occupant. This amounted to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, disentitling the claimants from fastening liability upon the appellant. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the material omissions and contradictions in the evidence on record, including discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, the insurance policy produced, and the alleged time of the incident. It is submitted that the term of the insurance policy had expired at the time of the alleged accident, and therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant–Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 04.02.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 43/2015 titled Nanbai & Ors. v. Jagnarayan & Ors., by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, is liable to be set aside and the present appeal deserves to be allowed by exonerating the appellant from any liability, in the interest of justice. 7 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and also perused the documents available on record. 5. From a careful perusal of the documents on record and the award passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has duly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the testimony of Tribhuwan (A.W.-2), who is an eye-witness to the incident. The said eye-witness has categorically stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was sitting on the boundary of the agricultural field and that the driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Due to such rash and negligent driving, the tractor crossed the boundary of the field, resulting in the deceased coming under the tractor, which ultimately caused his death. The testimony of the said eye- witness appears to be cogent, consistent and trustworthy. 6. It is well settled that motor accident claim cases are to be decided on the basis of the evidence and documents adduced by the parties, and the standard of proof applicable is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the claimants have successfully established the occurrence of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle through reliable oral evidence. 8 7. So far as the contention of the appellant–Insurance Company disputing the version of the eye-witness is concerned, it is to be noted that once the claimants have discharged their initial burden, the onus shifts upon the Insurance Company to rebut the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to produce any corroborative or independent evidence to discredit the testimony of the eye- witness or to substantiate its plea regarding breach of policy conditions. The arguments advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company are merely bald assertions without any supporting material on record. The learned Tribunal has also rightly held that the offending vehicle was insured with the present appellant at the relevant time and that no breach of policy conditions has been proved. The pleas raised regarding absence of a valid driving licence, unauthorised occupant, or expiry of insurance policy have not been substantiated by the appellant through any reliable evidence. Mere pleading or argument, without proof, is insufficient to absolve the Insurance Company of its statutory liability. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has correctly fastened liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 9 9. Accordingly, I do not find the present case to be a fit one for interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE