1 CGHC010021152025 2026:CGHC:39742 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 151 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rani Kosre Wd/o Khemchand Kosre Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ward No. 62, P.S. Station Maroda, Surya Nagar, Utai P.S. Newai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2 - Dashru Ram S/o Dheemra Satnami Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ward No. 62, P.S. Station Maroda, Surya Nagar, Utai P.S. Newai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3 - Geeta Bai W/o Dashru Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ward No. 62, P.S. Station Maroda, Surya Nagar, Utai P.S. Newai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Sanju Kumar Nishad S/o Devdhar Nishad Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 725, Ramnagar, Dundera, P.S. Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner). 2 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Office Address - Station Road, Near Ujala Bhawan, Parakh Complex, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Suchi Ramteke, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 06.11.2024 2 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No. 285 of 2023 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants seeking compensation has been dismissed. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 13.04.2023 at 8.00 p.m., deceased Khemchand Kosre was going to his house on his Motorcycle. On the way, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending motorcycle No. C.G.07/BX-2634 in rash and negligent way hit the deceased’s motor cycle from back side, due to which, the deceased fell down along with his motorcycle and suffered grievous injuries. He died during treatment on the same day. Appellant No.1 is wife, appellant 2 & 3 are parents of the deceased. Thus the appellants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.1,39,40,000/- on various heads. 3. Respondent no.1 has pleaded in his written statement that only on suspicion, crime was registered against him and the deceased himself was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle of respondent no.1, therefore, deceased himself was liable for the accident. 4. In the written statement filed by Respondent no.2/Insurer it has been stated that respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there was breach of terms of policy and the claim application was liable to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal after evaluating the facts and documents placed on record has dismissed the claim petition mainly on the following grounds: (i) the person (Laxminarayan Mahipal) who claims to be an eye- witness to the accident and brought the deceased to the Government Hospital, on the basis of which, merg intimation (Ex.P-4) was recorded on 14.04.2023 at 13.40 pm has not been examined before the tribunal. While discussing issue no.1, the Tribunal has found that the claimants failed to 3 produce this eyewitness before the Court to testify the negligence of respondent no.1, therefore, the arrest of driver was not on the basis of negligence as the allegation of rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 by hitting the vehicle of deceased is not made out. (ii) The Tribunal further considering the annual income of deceased to be Rs.5,00,000/- and there was no breach of insurance Policy rejected the claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2025 INSC 600) contends that absence of an eyewitness cannot be the sole ground to dismiss a motor accident compensation claim if negligence can otherwise be reasonably established through official records like a First Information Report (FIR) and a Charge Sheet. He next submits that in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018 Supreme (SC) 283, the Supreme Court held that police records specifically the FIR, Charge Sheet constitute prima facie evidence of the accident and the complicity of the driver. Once these documents are produced, they establish a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the opposing party (the driver, owner, or insurer) to adduce oral or documentary evidence to disprove the police report, the involvement of the offending vehicle, or the allegation of rash and negligent driving, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain. 7. Relying on a case law reported in Geeta Dubey Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd., decided on December 18, 2024 in SLP (Civil No.8551 of 2024 he further submits that the Tribunal erred by applying the strict standard of criminal proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) instead of the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, which is the mandated standard for welfare legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act. He, therefore, prays that impugned award cannot be allowed to sustain and the matter 4 be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in absence of evidence of eye-witness, the rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 has not been made out, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. He further submits that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 10. The Tribunal framed issue no.1 as to whether on 13.04.2023 at 8 p.m., the accident was caused by respondent no.1 due to his rash and negligent driving of his motorcycle, consequently the deceased succumbed to injuries during treatment. The said question was answered in negative. In this regard, discussing the evidence of claimant witness Rani Kosre (PW-1), the tribunal found that she is not the eye-witness to the incident. On evaluating the facts narrated in the Police charge sheet, it has further observed that in absence of evidence of eye-witness account i.e., the deceased being hit by respondent no.1 with his motorcycle due to his rash and negligence is not reflected. Even the cause of brake failure as mentioned in Ex.P-18 & P-19 does not show the evidence of the deceased being hit by the negligence of another person. 11. In reply to Question No.2, the Tribunal has clearly recorded the finding that at the time of accident, there was no breach of terms of policy and respondent no.1 was having valid and effective driving license. 12. Question No.3 framed by the Tribunal is in respect of the income of deceased. After considering the income tax details and bank statements, the Tribunal has found the annual income of deceased to be Rs.5 lakhs. However, it did not compute the compensation to be granted to the claimants and out-rightly rejected the claim in view of its finding recorded against question no.1 by holding that rash and negligent driving of 5 respondent no.1 is not established. 13. Therefore, considering the available facts pleaded and the documentary evidence such as Charge Sheet, FIR, Merg intimation etc., which form part of Police Record and in the light of the case-laws laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), the claim case is required to be considered and adjudicated. In that view of the matter, the findings of Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 cannot be allowed to sustain and are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding these issues afresh in the light of the principles laid down by Supreme Court. 14. It is also made clear that the Tribunal is also not required to take additional evidence. It shall redecide Issue Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 and pass a fresh award in accordance with the case laws discussed above. 15. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 05.10.2026 at 11.00 a.m. 16. With the above observations/directions, this appeal is disposed off. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.16 13:02:25 +0530