1 2026:CGHC:2263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 150 of 2021 1 - Rekha Soni W/o Late Ritesh Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o Ganganagar Sector - 2, Ward No. 15, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ritika Soni D/o Late Ritesh Soni Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Rekha Soni, R/o Ganganagar Sector -2, Ward No. 15, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ritisha Soni D/o Late Ritesh Soni Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Rekha Soni, R/o Ganganagar Sector -2, Ward No. 15, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pushpa Soni W/o Suresh Kumar Soni Aged About 51 Years R/o Ganganagar Sector -2, Ward No. 15, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Kumar Soni S/o Late Parasram Soni Aged About 57 Years R/o Ganganagar Sector -2, Ward No. 15, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh…. (Claimants) ... Appellants Versus 1 - Rameshwar Singh S/o A.S. Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Vaishali Vihar Phase - I, Quarter No. 17, Ameri Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh…. (Driver Of Scorpio No. C.G. -10-AK-5126) 2 - Takeshwar Prasad S/o Ishwari Prasad Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o Matwari Para, Limtara, Darrighat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh…. (Owner Of Scorpio No. C.G. -10-AK-5126) 3 - United Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Beside Gurukripa Tower, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company : Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.16 11:08:02 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 14/01/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 454/2019 dated 17.12.2020, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that on 27.09.2018 deceased- Ritesh Soni was going home on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10 / AD-0143 and when he reached near Bahatarai Chowk, driver of the offending vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-10 / AK-5126 by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of deceased, resultantly he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The claimants who are widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They pleaded that the deceased was a Constable in the Police Department earning Rs.30,000/- per month and his age at the time of accident was 32 years. They claimed a sum of Rs.81,08,000/-. 4. The driver / respondent No.1 and owner / respondent No.2 of the offending vehicle filed reply to the claim petition and took a plea that the Scorpio vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did have a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed reply and stated that there was contributory negligence. Further plea was taken that the Insurance Company of the motorcycle has not been arrayed as party respondent. 3 The driver of the offending motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving licence and there was negligence on the part of the deceased himself. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issue, parties led evidence and thereafter the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, inter alia, on the ground that the claimants failed to prove involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident as registration number of the vehicle surfaced after 03 months. 6. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants would argue that the deceased met with an accident on 27.09.2018. He would contend that the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of merg intimation on 28.09.2018 against unknown vehicle. He would contend that according to the contents of F.I.R., the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by unknown vehicle. He would submit that during course of investigation, the police recorded statement of one Amir Sonwani under Section161 CrPC who stated that the white Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-10 / AK-5126 was involved in the accident. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal would submit that this witness has been examined by the claimants as AW-3. It is also argued that the owner of the offending Scorpio moved an application for supurdnama of the vehicle and it was allowed by the learned Criminal Court. He would contend that no complaint against registration of F.I.R., seizure of vehicle was made by owner or driver of the offending vehicle. He further contend that the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was implicated in the accident. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Dubey and Others Vs. United 4 India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779. He would pray to allow this appeal. 7. Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company would oppose the submission made by Mr. Goutam Khetrapal. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that F.I.R. was registered against unknown vehicle on 28.09.2018 and brother of the deceased namely Sunil Soni made a written complaint before the Police Station on 26.12.2018 to the effect that he was informed by one Bihari Yadav who told that one Amir Sonwani was an eyewitness to the accident. On such complaint, police recorded statement of Amir Sonwani and first time the registration number of the offending vehicle Scorpio got surfaced. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that in evidence, Amir Sonwani stated that the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by Scorpio from back side, whereas according to the contents of F.I.R., there was a head on collision. He would submit that there is contradiction between the contents of F.I.R. and evidence of alleged eyewitness. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter dismissed the claim case. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sithara N.S. and Others Vs. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2793 wherein it is held that the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle must be established through the cogent and reliable evidence. He has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited 5 Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476, wherein it is held that once a part of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that contents of remaining part thereof are not relevant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 9. Deceased Ritesh Soni met with an accident on 27.09.2018, merg was registered on the same date. An F.I.R. was registered on 28.09.2018 against unknown vehicle. F.I.R. was lodged by Rampratap Jaiswal, Constable who was also posted at Police Station Sarkanda. The contents of the F.I.R. would reveal that he was not an eyewitness. On the basis of observation, he stated that bike of deceased was dashed by a vehicle from front side. During the course of investigation, a written complaint was made by brother of the deceased namely Sunil Soni on 26.12.2018, wherein he stated that he was told by one Bihari Yadav that Amir Sonwani had witnessed the accident. The cell number of Amir Sonwani was provided by Bihari Yadav. Amir Sonwani informed the complainant Sunil Soni that on 27.09.2018 at around 11:30 pm, the driver of the offending Scorpio by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. On the basis of such information police seized the offending vehicle Scorpio on 28.03.2019 and after completion of investigation final report was submitted. Ex. P/18 would show that an application was moved by the owner of the offending vehicle Scorpio for interim custody of vehicle which was allowed by competent Court. 6 10. The claimants examined Rekha Soni W/o deceased as AW-1 who stated that the deceased was a Constable working with the Police Department and his motorbike was dashed by Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-10 / AK-5126. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm. AW-2 Chandresh Kashyap, a Constable stated that the deceased was a Constable earning salary of Rs.24,696/- per month. 11. Amir Sonwani was examined as AW-3.This witness on affidavit stated that on 27.09.2018 while he was going Jarhabhata, he witnessed the accident as Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-10 / AK-5126 dashed a motorcycle. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that no complaint was made by him and he never intimated the family members of the deceased. In cross-examination, this witness elaborated the accident and stated that the deceased was going towards Sarkanda on his motorcycle and the driver of the Scorpio vehicle was also going towards Sarkanda by driving it rashly and negligently. This witness denied the suggestion put forth by counsel for the Insurance Company that while deceased was crossing road from wrong side, he was dashed. 12. In the matter of Geeta Dubey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in claim case where the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant paragraph- 20 is reproduced herein below:- “20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See 7 Sanjeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as follows: “14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant’s witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose.” 13. In the matter of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others Vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512, the Hon’ble held that an application under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be decided on basis of evidence led before it and 8 not on basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. With regard to involvement of the vehicle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that owner of the vehicle appeared as a witness and he admitted that he had taken vehicle on superdari, but failed to file any proceeding to quash F.I.R. against driver of car. The relevant paragraphs No. 9 and 10 are reproduced herein below:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the order of the High Court is unsustainable. Appellant 1 and her husband had received injuries in an accident which took place on 1-6- 2007. She lost her husband on 25-6-2007. The primary concern of Appellant 1 or other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the deceased in his critical condition. The health and well-being of her husband was her priority rather that to lodge an FIR. The High Court has proceeded primarily on the basis of information to the police regarding non-disclosure of the name of the driver of the car in the FIR. Appellant 1 has filed her examination-in-chief on 1-8-2011 disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle. The owner and the Insurance Company had the opportunity to cross- examine the witness in support of their stand that the vehicle number given by her was not involved in the accident. In cross-examination, she deposed that she was brought to the hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their vehicle. She deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalised, therefore, she filed the complaint late. 10. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR against Sanjay, driver of the Car. He admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Exts. 68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false implication of his vehicle or the driver.” 14. In the present case also, F.I.R. was registered against unknown vehicle and after investigation, police seized the offending vehicle Scorpio and the driver of the offending vehicle was arrested. After investigation, final 9 report was filed by the police. The owner of the offending vehicle moved an application for interim custody of the vehicle which was allowed, but owner of the offending vehicle never made any complaint before the superior police authority against seizure of offending vehicle or registration of F.I.R. or filing of charge sheet. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 1900 held that point of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. It is also held that subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. 16. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10351 of 2019, Dated February 25, 2025 has held that “It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye- witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 17. Now coming to the judgment cited by Mr. Deshmukh. In the matter Premlata Shukla (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 13, observed that once a part of the contents of the document was 10 admitted in evidence and therefore, the party bringing the document on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part said document had not been proved. In the said judgment, the witness who produced document was examined and he admitted part of document and denied remaining part of document, but present is not a case where the author of the F.I.R. appeared in witness-box and admitted the contents of F.I.R. Therefore, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the cited case. 18. Mr. Deshmukh has also placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Sithara N.S. (supra), the relevant paragraphs No. 16 and 17 are reproduced herein below:- “16. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is also well settled that the absence of vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim. An FIR is not an encyclopedia and omissions at the initial stage may not be determinative. However, the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle must be established through cogent and reliable evidence. 17. However, in the present case, the omission of the vehicle registration number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation, but in conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence. The complaint merely states that a vehicular accident occurred without identifying the offending vehicle. The spot mahazar was admittedly prepared several days after the accident. In absence of any eyewitness to the accident, there is nothing to indicate the basis upon which it was drawn up or whose statement formed its foundation.” 19. In Sithara N.S. (supra) it is held that the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle/driver and that must be established 11 through cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the claimants have examined an eye-witness Amir Sonwani (AW-3) who has categorically stated that the offending vehicle Scorpio was involved in the accident, therefore, in my opinion, the judgment cited by Mr. Deshmukh would not help. 20. In the present case, no complaint was made by the Driver, Owner or Insurance Company against alleged false implication of the offending vehicle before superior police authority. Even no complaint was made against alleged eyewitness who represented himself as an eyewitness after 03 months of the accident. Though the Investigator was appointed by the Insurance Company, but no report has been placed on record. 21. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal to decide it afresh. 22. The parties shall appear before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal on 27/02/2026. The record of the learned Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti