1 2026:CGHC:11588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 275 of 2021 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office- Sriram Complex, Near Kedia Talkies, Ring Road Nh-43, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Pin No. 497442. Through In-Charge. T.P.Hub, T.P.Hub Office, Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Opp. Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin 495001, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Anupriya Singh W/o Late Deepak Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, P.S. Bcm Police Station, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Presently R/o. Characha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Characha Qtr. No. 860, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumar Ruhi Singh, S/o Late Deepak Singh, Aged About 5 Years (Minor) Represented Through Natural Guardian And Mother Mrs. Anupriya Singh, R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, P.S. Bcm Police Station, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Presently R/o. Characha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Characha Qtr. No. 860, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Geeta Singh, W/o Late Shri Gaya Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, P.S. Bcm Police Station, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Presently R/o. Characha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Characha Qtr. No. 860, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Sunita Singh, W/o Shri Bonod Singh, Aged About 39 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, P.S. Bcm Police Station, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Presently R/o. Characha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Characha Qtr. No. 860, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shishti Singh, D/o Binod Singh, Aged About 18 Years Profession- Studies, Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, P.S. Bcm Police Station, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Presently R/o. Characha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Characha Qtr. No. 860, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shiv Singh Gond, S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 46 Years Profession- Service, R/o Village And Post Jarhabhata, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 495001, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Depot Officer, Regional Store, Secl, Hasdeo Area, Khongapani, District Shahdol (M.P.), District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 8 - Sub Area Manager, Secl, Office Khongapani Hasdeo Area, District Shahdol (M.P.), District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 313 of 2021 1 - Depot Officer, Regional Store, Secl, Hasdeo Area, Khongapani, District Shahdol, M.P., District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Sub Area Manager, Secl, Hasdeo Area, Khongapani, District Shahdol, M.P. --- Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Anupriya Singh, W/o Late Deepak Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, B.C.M. Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil - Manendragarh. Current R/o Charcha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Quarter No. 860 Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Roohi Singh, D/o Late Deepak Singh, Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Anupriya Singh, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Late Deepak Singh, R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, B.C.M. Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil - Manendragarh. Current R/o Charcha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Quarter No. 860 Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt Geeta Singh, W/o Late Gaya Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, B.C.M. Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil - Manendragarh. Current R/o Charcha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Quarter No. 860 Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt Suneeta Singh, W/o Late Vinod Singh, Aged About 39 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, B.C.M. Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil - 3 Manendragarh. Current R/o Charcha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Quarter No. 860 Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shrishti Singh, D/o Late Vinod Singh, Aged About 18 Years R/o Khongapani, Ward No. 14, B.C.M. Station Jhagrakhand, Tehsil - Manendragarh. Current R/o Charcha Colliery, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Quarter No. 860 Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shiv Singh Gond, S/o Late Amar Singh, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Post Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001 (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Office - Shri Ram Complex, Nea Kedia Talkies, Ring Road, N H - 43, Manendragarh, District - Korea, C.G. - 497442 (Insurance Company), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 275 of 2021 For Appellant : Mr. R. N. Pusty along with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent No. 7 & 8 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate MAC No. 313 of 2021 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Kartikeya, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 11/03/2026 1. MAC/275/2021 has been filed by the Insurance Company and MAC/313/2021 has been filed by the Depot Officer, Regional Store, SECL, challenging the award dated 01.12.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Koriya whereby, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 84,71,536/- along with interest @ of 9% per annum to the claimants 4 on account of death of Deepak Singh. The learned Tribunal further directed the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the driver, owner/Depot Officer, Regional Store, & Sub Area Manager, SECL, Office Khongapani, Hasdeo Area, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. 2. The brief facts are that on 03.05.2019, while the deceased Deepak Kumar Singh alongwith his friend Chandan Singh was returning from Khongapani on a motorcycle at around 10:30 hrs, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. MP-18-H-1882, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle from behind near Nehru Club, Main Road Khongapani. As a result, Deepak Kumar Singh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The driver of the offending vehicle filed a reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a reply stating that there was contributory negligence, as the rider of the motorcycle was also negligent. They further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for the period from 31.03.2019 to 30.03.2020, and the permit was valid from 15.07.2016 to 14.07.2021, whereas the fitness certificate was valid from 27.09.2018 to 26.09.2029, therefore, the liability should be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 5. The Insurance Company also filed its reply separately and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter passed the impugned award. 6. Mr. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error of law while directing the Insurance Company to first indemnify the award 5 and thereafter recover the amount from the driver and owner. He would further submit that there was a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, therefore the liability should have been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. He would also contend that the Tribunal has considered the quarterly bonus amount of 9,175.82 in ₹ the monthly income of the deceased, which is erroneous. He would further submit that there was a head-on collision between the motorcycle and the truck, and sufficient documentary and oral evidence is available on record, therefore, the Tribunal should have assessed the extent of contributory negligence; thus, he prayed that the award may be set aside. 7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.7 & 8 in MAC/275/2021 would submit that the learned Tribunal rightly directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the award. He would further submit that as the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the direction of the Tribunal is just and proper, therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Vaibhav Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing in MAC No. 313 of 2021 for the appellant would submit that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and sufficient evidence was adduced by the owner of the offending vehicle, but the learned Tribunal decided it against the owner. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have relied upon the FIR and the charge-sheet, which clearly indicate that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. He would further submit that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, and it had valid permit and fitness certificate as such the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation. He would contend that the widow of the deceased has already been granted compassionate appointment; thus, the claim 6 case filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal was not tenable and the award passed by the Tribunal may be set aside. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is admitted fact that the deceased, aged 31 years, met with an accident on 03.05.2019, and the FIR was registered on the same date, vide Ex P-2, wherein it is stated that the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the driver of the offending truck near Nehru Club, main road Khongapani. The offending truck was seized by the police on 09.05.2019 vide Ex. P-4, and the driver of the offending vehicle was arrested on the same date vide Ex.P-5. 11. Anupriya Singh (AW-1), wife of the deceased Deepak Singh stated that the deceased was earning 60,000 per month and the claimants were ₹ dependent on his income. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm. 12. Anil Singh (AW-2), the uncle of the deceased, stated that he witnessed the accident and categorically stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly & negligently. 13. A. C. Prasad, Deputy Manager, West Jhagrakhan Sub Area (AW-3), proved the salary slip and income of the deceased vide Ex.P-13. 14. The Insurance Company examined Anup Mehta (NAW-1), who stated that the accident took place within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh, and there was no permit to drive the vehicle within the territory of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, according to him, there was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Khongapani is situated at the border of the States of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. 15. Perusal of the FIR, seizure memo, and crime details it is apparent that the accident took place within the territory of Chhattisgarh. There was no valid permit, therefore, the liability has rightly been fastened upon 7 the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 16. With regard to contributory negligence, neither SECL nor the Insurance Company lead evidence. It is a well-settled principle of law that contributory negligence can be proved only by leading proper evidence. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others, reported in 2014 (4) SCC 511 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 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 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.” 18. Taking into consideration the documentary & oral evidence and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to contributory negligence, the contention made by Mr. Vaibhav Karthikeyan cannot be accepted. Accordingly, MAC No. 313 of 2021, is hereby dismissed. 19. The learned Tribunal fastened liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy. However, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the driver and owner. 20. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company could not prove contrary, therefore, the direction of “pay and recover” appears to be just and proper, which does not require interference by this Court. 8 21. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it appears that the learned Tribunal assessed the income on the basis of the evidence of Mr. A. C. Prasad, Deputy Manager, (AW-3), who proved the salary slip of the deceased. In cross-examination, no material questions were put by the Insurance Company. Any minor difference in the assessment of compensation would not materially affect the final figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal MAC No. 275 of 2021 is also hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim