1 2026:CGHC:16241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1289 of 2018 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office -1, Divisional Manager Kutchery Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. C.G. 04 H.C. 3214) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kalyani Sahu W/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kanchana Sahu D/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tokes Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tarun Kumar Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mukesh Pandey S/o Ramneet Pandey Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Kechua Thana - Nai Gadhi District - Riwa (Madhya Pradesh). Present Resident - Dolia Company, Siltara, Thana - Dharsiwan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04-H.C.3214) (Driver) 6 - Dhiman Sen S/o Nikhil Sen Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Vehicle Owner, Resident - Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04-H.C.3214) (Owner) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.17 10:20:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Arvind Panda and Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocates For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 09.04.2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.28/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this appeal are that on 25.06.2011, the non-applicant No. 1, driving Truck bearing registration No. CG-04 -HC-3214 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, struck a motorcycle driven by the husband of the claimant No.1, Gurudayal Sahu, resulting in the death of her husband and injuries to the claimant. A report of the accident was lodged with Police Station Dharsiwan, District Raipur. Based on the report, a case was registered against non-applicant No. 1, Mukesh Pandey, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 3. The claimants have filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal stating therein that at the time of the accident, the deceased was posted as Assistant Grade-2 in Chhattisgarh State Power Company Limited, earning a monthly income of Rs.62,082/-. With 12 years of service remaining, the deceased was expected to earn approximately Rs.90,000/- per month considering future promotions and an estimated 40% increase in salary, which would have supported the claimants. It was further pleaded that the deceased was 48 years of age on the date of the accident and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,19,60,000/- from the non-applicants jointly and severally. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 denied the claim, stating that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was holding a valid driving license and operating the vehicle legally. The offending vehicle was insured from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011, and according to the insurance terms, non-applicant No. 3 was responsible for third-party risks and property damage. They further contended that the First Information Report mentioned a vehicle without a number and “Mahamaya” written on it, and non-applicants were not liable for payment of compensation. 5. Non-applicant No. 3/appellant herein, the insurance company, denied the allegations, asserting that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and did not possess a driving license. It further stated that the vehicle allegedly involved was seized six months after the incident, was being used without fitness and 4 permits, and was parked at a private company at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the claimants’ application was liable to be dismissed and it be exonerated to satisfy the liability to pay the amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.75,91,488/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of commendation upon the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant herein. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident dated 25.06.2011, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is submitted that, immediately after the accident, the First Information Report was lodged on the same day, and the deceased’s motorcycle was seized by the police several months later. In contrast, the offending vehicle was seized only after a delay of six months, without any substantive basis, and solely on presumption. It has been clearly established that the offending vehicle was within the premises of a private company at the time of the alleged accident. 8. Further, it is submitted that the claimants failed to produce any independent witness to substantiate their petition under Section 5 166 of the M.V. Act. The claimants, including the widow, and other family members, have made contradictory statements before the criminal authorities and the Claims Tribunal. Notably, the claimant No.1 who was pillion-riding on the deceased’s motorcycle could not clearly specify whether the offending vehicle struck from the front or the rear, whereas another witness stated that the collision occurred from behind. He contends that, in compliance with Section 134 of the M.V. Act, it was the duty of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to disclose the identity of the driver at the time of the accident. No such disclosure was made. The basis for the police seizure of the offending vehicle after six months remains unexplained. The appellant has adduced evidence, including a witness from the private company, who confirmed that the offending vehicle was parked at the company premises on the date and time of the alleged accident, and had come there for loading goods. 9. It is submitted that the statements of the claimants’ witnesses regarding the registration number of the offending vehicle are inconsistent and unreliable. One witness admitted that the number plate was not clearly visible due to rain, and the affidavits relied upon by the Tribunal were prepared after considerable time had passed, indicating they were made after reflection and could not be given full credence. Moreover, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not mention the registration number, further casting doubt on the claimants’ assertions. The Tribunal’s findings, 6 particularly in certain paragraphs of the award, are premised solely on presumption that the offending vehicle was involved. This approach is erroneous. The statement of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is available on record, was not duly considered by the Tribunal and ought to be examined in the interest of justice. As such, the appeal be allowed and appellant be exonerated to satisfy its liability. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a settled position of law that in a motor accident claim petition, the initial burden lies upon the claimants to establish, at least on a prima facie basis, the factum of the accident and the involvement and identity of the offending vehicle; only upon discharge of this primary burden does the onus shift upon the opposite party to rebut the same. 11. Reliance has been placed upon a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to substantiate the submissions advanced. In this regard, reference has been made to Vanita and others v. M/s Shriram Insurance Company Limited and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1986, National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeshwari and others, 2021 (4) T.A.C. 367 (S.C.), Wakir Afrin (Minor) v. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15447-47/2024 decided on 01.08.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has delineated the governing principles relevant to the controversy at 7 hand. It is submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case and lends substantial support to the stand taken by the appellant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari Prasad and others, 2010 (1) T.A.C.1002 (Chhatt.), wherein similar issues came to be considered, and the legal position was reiterated in consonance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the said judgment fortifies the submissions advanced herein and clearly supports the relief sought in the present proceedings. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company and submits that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and do not warrant any interference. It is contended that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident stands duly proved from the consistent and cogent testimonies of AW-1 Smt. Kalyani Sahu (pillion rider) and AW-2 Bhuneshwar Prashad Sahu (eye-witness), both of whom have unequivocally deposed regarding the manner of accident and the role of the offending vehicle. Their statements inspire confidence and remain unshaken in cross-examination. Further, the prompt lodging of FIR on the very same day and filing of charge-sheet 8 against the driver of the offending vehicle lends strong corroboration to the case of the claimants. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the defence sought to be raised by the Insurance Company, that the offending vehicle was stationed at Godavari Power and Ispat at the time of accident, has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance Company have failed to produce any cogent or reliable documentary evidence to substantiate such plea. On the contrary, their own witnesses have admitted material contradictions, and no independent record has been brought on record to establish that the vehicle was not present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle has lodged any complaint before any authority alleging false implication of the vehicle in the accident, which clearly fortifies the case of the claimants. Even the driver (NAW-1) has admitted pendency of criminal proceedings against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and has not taken any steps to challenge the same. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its powers under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act by examining the Investigating Officer and other police officials as Court witnesses, and upon holistic appreciation of the entire material available on record, has arrived at a just and proper finding that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. 9 14. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2018 SC 1900), wherein it has been held that the standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further reliance is placed on Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2020) 13 SCC 486, wherein it has been reiterated that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in such proceedings and the Tribunal is required to adopt a pragmatic approach. 15. Reliance is also placed on Geeta Dubey & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in cases where involvement of the vehicle is disputed, the claimants are only required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Further reliance is placed on Janabai vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 512, wherein it has been held that failure of the owner to challenge the implication of the vehicle or driver is a relevant circumstance to uphold involvement of the vehicle. 16. On the issue of compassionate appointment, learned counsel submits that the law is well settled that any benefit received on account of compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. In this 10 regard, reliance has been placed on Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it has been categorically held that compassionate appointment is not a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction. The said principle has been consistently followed by this Court in MAC No. 186 of 2013 as well as in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitaichandra Saha & Ors. (MAC No. 43 of 2015). 17. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, proper and based on sound legal principles, and therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.6/owner of the offending vehicle submits that the owner had no role in the alleged accident. The offending vehicle was parked at the company premises at the relevant time, as evidenced by a company vacancy slip and other documentary records. The driver of the vehicle was not in the control of the owner at the time of the incident, and no disclosure was made by any person regarding the identity of the driver, in accordance with Section 134 of the M.V. Act. It is further submitted that the seizure of the offending vehicle six months after the alleged accident was made without any substantive basis, relying solely on presumption. Therefore, the owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged incident. The claimants have also failed to produce any credible witness or evidence directly linking 11 the offending vehicle to the accident. It is lastly submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in attributing liability to the owner of the offending vehicle, and the claim against the owner deserves to be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 20. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence adduced, and documents available on record, it emerges that the core controversy in the present appeal revolves around the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident dated 25.06.2011 and the consequent liability fastened upon the appellant–Insurance Company. The appellant has primarily assailed the award on the ground that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that its implication has been made on the basis of delayed seizure and conjectures. On the other hand, the claimants have relied upon the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses as well as contemporaneous documentary evidence such as FIR, charge- sheet, and other investigative materials to substantiate the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent act of its driver. In this backdrop, the entire evidentiary matrix is required to be appreciated holistically so as to ascertain whether the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal suffers from any illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence. 12 21. From perusal of the record, it is evident that a prompt First Information Report (Ex. P/3) was lodged on the very same day of the incident by the eyewitness namely Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu (AW-2), who was closely trailing behind the motorcycle on which the deceased Gurudayal Sahu and claimant Kalyani Sahu were travelling. In the said FIR, the witness has clearly and categorically stated that the accident was witnessed by several persons present in the vicinity and that the truck in question, driven in a rash and negligent manner, had struck the motorcycle from behind, resulting in the fatal injuries to the deceased. The immediate lodging of FIR lends considerable credibility to the version of the eyewitness and rules out the possibility of deliberation or embellishment at a later stage. The investigation conducted by the police authorities culminated in filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the vehicle itself, thereby prima facie affirming the involvement of the said truck in the accident. 22. Further, the testimony of AW-1 Kalyani Sahu, who was herself an injured pillion rider, also supports the occurrence of the accident, though certain minor inconsistencies regarding the manner of impact may exist due to the traumatic nature of the incident. However, the consistent and categorical version of AW-2 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, who was an independent eyewitness following the deceased’s motorcycle at a close distance, clearly establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact 13 that the accident occurred due to its rash and negligent driving. His deposition inspires confidence and finds corroboration from the FIR and police investigation records. 23. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that the vehicle was seized after a period of six months and therefore its involvement becomes doubtful cannot, by itself, discredit the otherwise cogent and consistent ocular and documentary evidence on record. Delay in seizure or investigation, in absence of any material to show fabrication or manipulation, cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the claimants when the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle stands duly established through credible eyewitness testimony and contemporaneous records. 24. Accordingly, upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident in question and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. 25. Once this foundational burden stood duly discharged, the onus clearly shifted upon the appellant–Insurance Company to dislodge the said evidence by leading credible and convincing material. However, the appellant has failed to rebut the same in any legally sustainable manner. The plea regarding delayed seizure of the vehicle, its alleged presence in a private company premises, and 14 inconsistencies in witness statements, remain in the realm of conjectures and have not been substantiated by any unimpeachable evidence so as to discredit the otherwise consistent ocular and documentary evidence available on record. Mere delay in seizure or investigation, in absence of proof of fabrication or mala fides, cannot be treated as fatal to the claimants’ case. 26. The testimony of AW-2, an independent eyewitness, inspires confidence and finds due corroboration from the FIR and other contemporaneous records. Minor inconsistencies in the version of AW-1, being an injured witness, are natural and do not go to the root of the matter so as to disbelieve the occurrence of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly appreciated the entire evidence in its correct perspective and arrived at a well-reasoned finding regarding negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. 27. Upon an independent, meticulous and comprehensive re- appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are firmly founded on cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence and are fully in consonance with the settled principles governing adjudication of motor accident claim cases. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the ocular as well as documentary evidence in its correct perspective. The prompt lodging of the First Information 15 Report on the very same day of the incident, the consistent and trustworthy testimony of AW-2 (independent eyewitness), the corroborative version of AW-1 (injured witness), and the filing of charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle collectively establish, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent manner in which it was driven. 28. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram (supra) squarely applies, wherein it has been held that the issue of negligence in motor accident claim cases is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability and not on the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The filing of charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle is a relevant and significant circumstance pointing towards his complicity. 29. The said principle has been reiterated in Ranjeet (supra), wherein it has been held that once a charge-sheet has been filed against the driver, the same itself constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence of negligent driving, and even non-examination of eyewitnesses would not be fatal to the claim. 30. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company regarding delayed seizure of the offending vehicle and its alleged presence within the premises of a private company at the relevant time has rightly been disbelieved by the learned 16 Tribunal. The evidence adduced in support of such plea does not inspire confidence and falls far short of the standard required to rebut the case of the claimants. No unimpeachable documentary evidence has been brought on record to conclusively establish that the vehicle was stationed elsewhere at the time of the accident. On the contrary, the admissions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, coupled with the absence of any complaint by the owner or driver alleging false implication of the vehicle, significantly weaken the defence sought to be projected. 31. In this context, reliance placed by the claimants on Janabai (supra), is apposite, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that failure of the owner to challenge the implication of the vehicle or to initiate any proceedings for quashing of FIR is a relevant circumstance to uphold the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. 32. This Court further finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has adopted a holistic and pragmatic approach while appreciating the entire evidence on record, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that in motor accident claim cases, the Tribunal is not required to adopt a hyper-technical approach or insist upon strict rules of evidence as applicable in criminal trials. Once the foundational facts regarding occurrence 17 of the accident are established, the Tribunal is required to determine the compensation on a just and reasonable basis. 33. Further, in Geeta Dubey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that even where the involvement of the vehicle is disputed, the claimants are only required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and not beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been emphasized that minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise credible case. 34. In the present case, the testimony of AW-2 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, being an independent eyewitness, inspires full confidence and stands duly corroborated by the FIR and the charge-sheet filed by the police authorities. The minor inconsistencies in the deposition of AW-1 Smt. Kalyani Sahu, who is an injured witness and had undergone a traumatic experience, are but natural and do not go to the root of the matter. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated these aspects and has drawn conclusions which are not only plausible but also legally sustainable. 35. Once the claimants have successfully discharged the initial burden of proving the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle, the onus shifted upon the appellant– Insurance Company to rebut the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, the appellant has failed to discharge such burden. The pleas raised by the appellant 18 regarding alleged contradictions in witness statements, delay in seizure of the vehicle, and its purported presence at another location remain unsubstantiated and are based merely on conjectures and surmises, which cannot dislodge the otherwise consistent and credible evidence led by the claimants. 36. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation after duly considering the income of the deceased, his age, future prospects, and the dependency of the claimants. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the compensation so awarded is either excessive or contrary to settled principles of law. 37. On the issue of compassionate appointment, the contention of the appellant also deserves to be rejected in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra), wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The said principle has been consistently followed and reiterated by various High Courts, including this Court, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not made any deduction on that count. 38. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur 19 (C.G.) is based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. The findings recorded therein do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 39. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed in toto, and the appellant–Insurance Company shall remain liable to satisfy the awarded compensation along with interest, in accordance with law. 40. There shall be no order as to costs. 41. The record of the concerned Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh