1 2026:CGHC:8856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1890 of 2023  United India Insurance Company Limited 19, High Road I V Lane Chennai (Tamilnadu), Through Its Authorised Authority, In-Charge, T P Hub, Deputy Manager, Divisional Office-1st Floor, L I C Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Paurav S/o Late Jaimangal Rajwade Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Near Mission School, Pakhnapara Manendragarh, Tah.- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, C.G. 2. Sujata W/o Jaimangal Rajwade Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Near Mission School, Pakhnapara Manendragarh, Tah.- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, C.G. 3. Aditya S/o Late Jaimangal Rajwade Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Near Mission School, Pakhnapara Manendragarh, Tah.- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, C.G. 4. Jaisingh Yadav S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill. Kalepur, P.O.- Sitara, Mahmudpur, P.S.- Sitara, Mahmudpur, P.S. Didarganj, Distt. Azamgarh (U.P.) (Driver) 5. Sushma Yadav W/o Komal Prasad Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o I. T. I. Faridabad, P.S.- Sidikpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U P, Permanent R/o- Sarai Parsoli, Jaitipur Lalganj, Distt. Azamgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Adv. For Respondent No.1to3 : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent No. 4&5 : Mr. R.K. Thakur, Adv. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.19 16:02:43 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 19.2.2026 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Disrtrict Koriya (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2022 dated 4.8.2023, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 53,40,000/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 4.12.2021, Jaimangal Rajwade was going from Ambikapur to Korba in MARUTI car bearing registration No. CG-12-AY-8218. At about 12:00 pm when he reached near P.S. Bango, Main Road Gandhinagar Banjari, the offending vehicle – SWIFT car bearing registration No. UP-62-AP- 9314 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the MARUTI car. In the accident, Jaimangal Rajwade sustained grievous injuries and died. 3) Claimants who are the widow and children of deceased moved claim application and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,39,35,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 42 years and used to earn Rs. 35,000/- per month working in press and running juice shop. Insurance Company filed reply and took plea 3 of contributory negligence. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 4) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that specific plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken by Insurance Company and Jaisingh Yadav (NAW/1) was examined to prove this issue. He further submits that this witness stated that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased but the learned Tribunal decided this issue in negative. He prays to allow this appeal and set aside the award impugned. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove the factum of contributory negligence and learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, deceased met with accident on 4.12.2021 at about 12:00 pm. FIR (Ex. A/2) and merg intimation (Ex. A/3) were registered on the same date. Crime Details Form (Ex. A/5) would show that deceased was driving MARUTI car on the left side of road. Jaisingh Yadav, driver of offending vehicle was examined as NAW/2. He stated that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased who was driving his car rashly and negligently. 4 He admitted that a criminal case is registered against him. In my opinion, driver of offending vehicle is an interested witness and evidence led by such witness cannot be accepted in its entirety without there being any documentary evidence in support of the same. 8) Evidently, there was head-on collision between the two vehicles but no evidence was led by the parties to prove the factum of contributory negligence. It is well settled principle of law that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. In the present case also, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased. 9) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others1 while dealing with the similar issue in para 10 held as under :- “to prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of the common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the tribunal 1. 2014 (4) SCC 511 5 was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 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