1 / 6 2026:CGHC:23086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1971 of 2019 Reserved on: 14.05.2026 Delivered on: 15.07.2026 Uploaded on: 16.07.2026 • ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh...........Insurer --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 4 versus 1. Vijay Kumar Sidar S/o Ghasiya Ram Sidar, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tilgi, P.S. And Tahsil Pussour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh...........Claimant 2. Suresh Jaiswal, S/o Dular Jaiswal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ghughri, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.............Driver 3. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Dular Jaiswal, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ghughri, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh...............Owner 4. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Branch Office Raigarh, Gourishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants MAC No. 1190 of 2019 • Vijay Kumar Sidar S/o Ghasiya Ram Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tilgi, Police Station And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Suresh Jaiswal S/o Dular Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Ghughri, Police Station and Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.Taluka Dabhara, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Dular Jaiswal Vehicle Owner, R/o Ghughri Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Jangir- Champa Chhattisgarh Taluka Dabhra, District Jangir Champa Chhattisarh. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 3. Branch Manager Efko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Branch Office Raigarh Gaurishankar Mandir Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh Taluka Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4. Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I Lombard Insurance Company Brance Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ In MAC No. 1971 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pradeep Jogi, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate In MAC No. 1190 of 2019 For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C.A,V. Order 1. As both these appeals are being filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the legality and sustainability of the impugned award dated 15.03.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 21/2017, they are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. MAC No. 1971/2019 is filed by Non-applicant No. 4/ Insurance Company in Claim Case No. 21/2017 inter alia on the ground as mentioned therein and MAC No. 1190/2019 is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. In claim case No. 21/2017, Claims Tribunal had allowed the application filed by Vijay Kumar Sidar (appellant in MAC No. 1190/2019) in part and awarded 3 / 6 total sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation, fastening liability upon non- applicants No. 1, 2 & 4 ie., driver, owner of motorcycle bearing No. CG11AC2512 and the insurer of motorcycle of claimant. 4. Brief facts of the case for disposal of these appeals are that on 18.10.2015 at about 10:00 am, when claimant-Vijay Kumar Sidar was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No. CG13UF5990 along with his wife and returning to his village Tilgi from village Lodhiya, he met with an accident with a motorcycle bearing No. CG11AC2512 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) coming from opposite direction driven by non-applicant No. 1. In the accident, he suffered grievous injuries over his body including fracture injury on left leg below knee and fracture injury of right thigh. Claimant thereafter filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 22,22,000 in total on different heads along with compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability. It was pleaded that the claimant was earning Rs. 7,000 per month towards salary by driving four wheeler vehicle and earning Rs. 3,000 per month as agricultural labourer. 5. Non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2 ie., driver and owner of offending motorcycle submitted reply to claim application denying the facts pleaded therein. They have also taken plea that the accident was on account of his own rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No. CG13UF5990 as he dashed the motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. The pleadings made with regard to income and the compensation sought is also denied. 6. Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurer of offending motorcycle also submitted reply pleading therein that the claimant himself was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently which resulted in accident. It is further pleaded that in the aforementioned facts of the case principle of contributory negligence will also be attracted. 4 / 6 7. Non-applicant No. 4/ Insurer (appellant in MAC No. 1971/2019) submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application. Apart from the other facts, it is also pleaded that the accident was a result of self-negligence of claimant driving the motorcycle. 8. Both the insurance companies have pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly exaggerated. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings made has formulated as many as five issues for consideration and upon concluding the trial of claim case had allowed the claim application in part, had awarded sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation and fastened liability upon non-applicants No. 1, 2, & 4. Claims Tribunal further recording the fact that the non-applicant No. 1 driving the offending motorcycle, was not possessing driving licence, held that there was breach of policy conditions and exonerated non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company of offending motorcycle from its liability to satisfy the award. 10. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company (non-applicant No. 4) would submit that the Claims Tribunal even after recording a categorical finding that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent act of Respondent No. 2/ non-applicant No. 1, exonerated the insurer of offending motorcycle, has fastened liability upon appellant-insurance company (insurer of motorcycle owned and driven by claimant) to be perverse and illegal. He also contended that there was head-on-collision of two motorcycles as such, the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2 and therefore fastening of liability upon non-applicant No. 4/ insurer to be illegal and arbitrary. 11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2 would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-Insurance company to pay the amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. He would submit 5 / 6 that Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation and therefore Respondent No. 1 has also filed separate appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of claimant himself ie., Respondent No. 1. 13. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability as on the date of accident offending motorcycle insured by Respondent No. 4 was being driven in breach of policy conditions as on the date of accident Respondent No. 2/ non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 15. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has decided two claim cases seeking compensation in an injury case by drivers of two motorcycles which met with accident due to head-on-collision of two motorcycles. 16. In the pleadings, the parties have taken plea that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of two motorcycles by its drivers. Claims Tribunal has not formulated the issue with regard to contributory negligence in the facts of the case. When pleadings have been made by driver, owner and insurer of both the motorcycles, the drivers of two motorcycles drove their motorcycle rashly and negligently. The issue with regard to contributory negligence in the facts of the case was necessary when drivers of both motorcycles have filed separate claim applications, one from which these 6 / 6 appeals are arising in claim case No. 21/2017 and another claim application bearing claim case No. 85/2017. In both the claim cases, issue has been framed whether non-applicant No. 1 on the date of accident drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently and in both the cases this issue has been decided in affirmative. Non framing of issue towards contributory negligence in the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be fatal. Claims Tribunal has also erred in assessing income of claimant as Rs. 4,500 per month in the facts of the case. 17. As Claims Tribunal has not formulated issue with regard to contributory negligence in the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and accordingly the award passed in claim case No. 21/2017 dated 15.03.2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim case No. 21/2017 afresh after framing additional issue of contributory negligence. It goes without saying that as the additional issue is to be framed, the parties will be at liberty to lead further evidence. 18. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18.08.2026. 19. Consequently, MAC No. 1971/2019 is allowed in part. 20. In view of decision made in MAC No. 1971/2019, MAC No. 1190/2019 filed by claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is not required any consideration on merits, accordingly it is also disposed of in light of decision in MAC No. 1971/2019. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn