1 2026:CGHC:16103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 151 of 2021 1 - Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd. Branch 4th Floor, Plot No. 413, 414, 415, 416, Mega Mall, Narona Crossing, Maal Road, Kanpur, Dist. Kanpur Nagar, (Uttar Pradesh), District : Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh ... Appellant versus [ 1 - Maya Devi Wd/o Late Puran Singh Kori Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Nagla, Lekhraj Post Dhaneli, Thana And Tahsil Malpura, Dist. Agra Uttar Pradesh, District : Agra, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Vinod Kumar S/o Late Puran Singh Kori Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Nagla, Lekhraj Post Dhaneli, Thana And Tahsil Malpura, Dist. Agra Uttar Pradesh, District : Agra, Uttar Pradesh. 3 - Bhuri Devi Wd/o Late Chhiddalal Kori Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Nagla, Lekhraj Post Dhaneli, Thana And Tahsil Malpura, Dist. Agra Uttar Pradesh, District : Agra, Uttar Pradesh. 4 - Ramashankar Kushwaha S/o Laxminarayan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Plot Number 24, Raman Vihar Tirambi, Thana Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), District : Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 5 - Sonu Kushwaha S/o Laxminarayan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Plot Number 24, Raman Vihar Tirambi, Thana Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), District : Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Harshmandan Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents : None ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.04.10 14:24:29 +0530 2 Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act”), is directed against the award dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, District– Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 91/28. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal, against a total claim of 31,00,000/-, has awarded a sum of ₹ ₹10,38,000/- as compensation in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 (claimants) on account of the death of deceased Pooran Singh Kori, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 01.06.2018. The accident was held to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing Registration No. UP78/DT-3015, driven by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5, and insured with the present appellant– Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident in question was a case of head-on collision between two vehicles. It is contended that the deceased himself was driving truck bearing Registration No. UP83/AT- 5753, and the offending vehicle was being driven by 3 respondent No.4. The spot map clearly reflects a head-on collision; however, the Tribunal failed3 to record proper findings regarding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. On the aforesaid basis, it is urged that the impugned award deserves to be interfered with and the amount of compensation requires appropriate reduction. 5. I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record with utmost care. 6. The sole contention advanced by the appellant pertains to the issue of contributory negligence. It is not in dispute that the appellant–Insurance Company had raised a specific plea regarding contributory negligence before the learned Tribunal; however, it failed to substantiate the said plea by leading cogent and reliable evidence. 7. The law on the point is well settled that where a plea of contributory negligence is taken, the burden lies upon the party asserting the same to prove it. In the present case, Issue No.2 relating to contributory negligence was duly framed by the Tribunal. While adjudicating the said issue, the learned Tribunal has elaborately considered the evidence available on record, including the testimony of Bisahat Bharti (DW-01), Sub- Inspector. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of documentary evidence such as Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/3 (spot map and seizure memo), recorded a 4 categorical finding that the accident was a head-on collision between the two4 observed that the conductor/occupants of both vehicles were material witnesses to the incident. 8. Significantly, the Insurance Company did not examine any independent witness to establish negligence on the part of the deceased. In absence of any cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the plea of contributory negligence remained unproved. The findings so recorded are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference by this Court. 9. In view of the foregoing, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned award. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Arpan