1 2026:CGHC:971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 591 of 2021 1 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Permanent Office Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Rd, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Soshan Lakra S/o Silbester Lakra Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Tehsil Telitoli, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Silbester Lakra S/o Late Barnabas Lakra Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Tehsil Telitoli, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Demetiriya W/o Silbester Lakra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kersai, Sukbasu Toli, Tehsil Farsabahar And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nandkumar Pradhan S/o Shri Bhakharnath Pradhan R/o Village Makribandha, Tahsil Duldula, And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (C.G. 14 Mh 0547), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sanjeevan Ekka S/o Late Silbester Ekka R/o Village Kersai, Tehsil Farsabahar And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (C.G. 14 Ma 7537)., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh NIRMALA RAO 2 Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07-01-2026 1) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No.42 of 2019 dated 18.1.2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.13,85,480/- alongwith interest @6% per annum on account of death of Pramod Lakra. 2) The facts, in brief, are that on 15.4.2019, deceased Pramod Lakra alongwith Edwin and Sanjeevan Ekka were going to village Kesarai and at the same time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.14 MH 0547 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resultantly, the deceased sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, he died. The claimants, who are brother and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company pleaded that three persons were traveling on a motorcycle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules; that the riders of both the motorcycles did not have valid driving licenses; 3 and both the motorcycles were not insured. Learned Tribunal framed the issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that as there was head on collusion and cross FIRs were lodged, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have framed a specific issue with regard to contributory negligence. He would contend that the Legal Assistant of the Insurance Company, namely, Rahul Choudhary was examined to prove the factum of the contributory negligence. He would pray to allow this appeal. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that neither Insurance Company nor the driver and owner of the offending vehicle could prove the existence of contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle. He would further contend that, as no plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken by the Insurance Company in its reply to the claim petition, therefore, no issue was framed, and for the first time such a plea is being raised before this Court. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) A perusal of the reply filed by the Insurance Company would show that there is no whisper with regard to contributory negligence. In evidence, Rahul Choudhary (NAW-1) has categorically stated that 4 3-3 persons where traveling on each of the motorcycle and the riders did not have a valid driving licenses. Learned Tribunal framed issues with regard to breach of conditions of Insurance Policy and decided the same in favour of the Insurance Company, fastening the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle with a stipulation of pay and recover. 7) Admittedly, there was a collision between two motorcycles. No issue was framed by the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence. The Insurance Company failed to plead and prove contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle. It is well-settled principle of law that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The Insurance Company as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle failed to lead evidence in this regard. 8) The 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 :- “10. 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 the 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 1 . 2014 (4) SCC 511 5 are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra) held that in absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the doctrine of common law cannot be applied. 10) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi