1. Naveen Sahu S/o Bhushanlal Sahu Aged About 22 Years 2. Bhushanlal Sahu S/o v. 1. Anand Yadav S/o Kejuram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karanja, Bhilai
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 745 of 2019 1. Naveen Sahu S/o Bhushanlal Sahu Aged About 22 Years 2. Bhushanlal Sahu S/o Late Kishanlal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Both R/o Village - Karanja, Bhilai, Police Station Jevra, Sirsa, Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1. Anand Yadav S/o Kejuram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karanja, Bhilai, Police Station Jevra Sirsa, Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), 2. The Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Commercial Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Branch Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 603 of 2019 1. Naveen Sahu S/o Bhushanlal Sahu Aged About 22 Years 2. Bhushanlal Sahu S/o Late Kishanlal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Both R/o Village Karanja, Bhilai, Police Station Jevra, Sirsa, Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Appellants 2 1. Shatrughan Yadav S/o Bhikham Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Devkar, Bemetara At Present Address Village Karanja, Bhilai, Police Station Jevra Sirsa, Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2. Smt. Sumitra Yadav W/o Shatrughan Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Devkar, Bemetara At Present Address Village Karanja, Bhilai, Police Station Jevra Sirsa, Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. The Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Commercial Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Branch Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No.745/2019 For Appellants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jaydeep Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. MAC No.603/2019 For Appellants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Jaydeep Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10/7/2025 1. As the above two appeals arise out of the same accident and the point for determination is also common, they are heard together and being decided by this order. 3 2. Both these appeals are preferred by the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, challenging the liability fastened upon them to pay the amount of compensation awarded. 3. Facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 26.1.2016 at about 11:30 p.m. in the night, Anand Yadav and Pappu Yadav were going on motorcycle to see cultural program. Anand Yadav was riding motorcycle and Pappu Yadav was travelling as pillion. When they reached village Karanja, motorcycle bearing registration mark CG07/LC/7164 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Pappu Yadav sustained grievous injuries and died. Anand Yadav also sustained grievous injuries, he was admitted in hospital for treatment where he underwent head surgery. 4. The parents of deceased Pappu Yadav i.e. claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 in MAC No.603/2019, have filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.34,00,000/- for accidental death of Pappu Yadav pleading that on the date of accident, deceased was 22-23 years of age, he was working as Carpenter, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and they were dependent on him. 4 5. Injured Claimant i.e. respondent No.1 in MAC No.745/2019, has also filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.44,50,000/- under different heads for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident. 6. Non-applicant No.1 and 2-driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed reply to claim applications pleading that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle, who was not holding valid and effective driving license. Occupation and income, as pleaded in claim application, was disputed. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, in case of grant of compensation, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. 7. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties had arrived at a conclusion that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1-driver; there was breach of condition of insurance policy 5 as also the rider of motorcycle was equally contributory negligent in the cause of accident. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application of injured claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,29,000/- after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence. Likewise, claim application of parents of deceased Pappu Yadav (pillion rider) was also allowed in part and total compensation of Rs.7,20,500/- was awarded. Holding breach of condition of insurance policy, driver and owner of offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 9. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that the injured rider of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident and speed of his motorcycle was too high and before the criminal court also he was found negligent in driving the motorcycle. The confession made before the criminal court can be relied upon by the Claims Tribunal while considering the issue of negligence. Since, driver of motorcycle has admitted his negligence in criminal proceeding, the Claims Tribunal ought to have held rider of motorcycle solely responsible for the accident. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that no evidence was adduced by the appellants herein to prove that there was no negligence on the part of 6 non-applicant No.1-driver of offending vehicle or the rider of motorcycle was solely responsible for the accident. It is next contended that the motorcycle of appellants herein was not insured and rider of offending motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal justified in fastening liability upon appellants, driver and owner of offending motorcycle, to pay the amount of compensation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of both the claim cases. 12. From the grounds as urged in memo of appeal as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant, it is discernible that the liability is impeached mainly on the basis of admission of guilt of negligence in a criminal proceeding by the driver of motorcycle i.e. injured claimant, on which deceased was a pillion. However, the issue that has to be gone into first is to find out if there is contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.1 herein, driver of offending motorcycle. 13. The issue with respect to negligence / contributory negligence is elaborately dealt by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence of Santosh Yadav (AW- 2), an eyewitness of accident, along with FIR (Ex.P-2), spot map (Ex.P-5) and MLC report (Ex.P-14) of injured Anand, 7 rider of motorcycle. Evidence of Santosh Yadav (AW-2) is to the effect that on the fateful night, after having dinner he was going to the house of Anand. Pappu and Anand were on other motorcycle. Offending motorcycle came from opposite direction and caused accident. In cross-examination this witness admitted that, it was a pitch-dark night and there was no street light on the spot. This witness was cross-examined by learned counsel for appellants herein, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to sole negligence of Anand, rider of other motorcycle. The Claims Tribunal took note of FIR, according to which, accident was a head-on collusion occurred in night hours. The Claims Tribunal also took note of spot map (Ex.P-4), which was prepared by police in the course of investigation, and it clearly shows that both the motorcycles dashed against each other and the accident occurred on the middle of the road. The Claims Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the police after completion of investigation of crime registered against Anand, rider of motorcycle, in connection with accident in question, filed the charge sheet under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC as also under Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988, which shows that he was not having driving license on the date of accident. The Claims Tribunal thereafter proceeded to take note of MLC report 8 (Ex.P-14) of Anand Yadav, rider of motorcycle on which deceased was riding as pillion, and found that Anand had smell of alcohol. The Claims Tribunal has thereafter recorded that the appellants herein though pleaded in their written statement has made specific contention that driver of offending motorcycle had no role to play in the accident, it occurred due to sole negligence of rider of motorcycle who was driving it under the influence of liquor. Except making averments in written statement, the appellants herein have not brought on record any oral or documentary evidence to establish that the said accident has taken place due to sole negligence of rider of other motorcycle. It is true that smell of alcohol was found in the stomach of Anand Yadav, rider of motorcycle, but a person is considered to be intoxicated only if he is tested and found to have alcohol in his blood more than the quantity fixed under the Act of 1988. In case at hand, since there is no report to the effect that alcohol in blood of Anand Yadav exceeded the stipulated limit, mere presence of smell of alcohol was not sufficient to infer that he was incapable of taking care of himself or was not in his senses. Thus, mere smell of alcohol was not considered as a contributory factor to the accident. More so, when the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants clearly establishes that, the accident in question has taken 9 place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and drivers of both the vehicles have equally contributed in the cause of accident. 14. From the above discussion, it can be seen that upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence and finding that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence made available on record by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion regarding rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the motorcycle. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the findings so rendered by the Claims Tribunal holding both the drivers of motorcycles equally responsible in the cause of accident does not suffer from any illegality and in fact, it is a well reasoned and well- considered finding, which does not require the interference of this Court. 15. Indisputably, on the basis of report of appellants herein in connection with the accident in question, Anand Yadav, rider of other motorcycle, was charge sheeted under Section 279, 337 of IPC and Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988 and on the basis of his admission of guilt of negligence, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Durg vide judgment dated 20.6.2016 passed in Case No.49382016, held him guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC and Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988, sentenced to undergo imprisonment 10 till rising of court and total fine of Rs.2,500/-. 16. The law in this regard has been reiterated time and again that the confession made by the driver before a criminal court should not be solely taken into consideration for deciding the factum of accident and consequent negligence aspect in a motor accident claim case. The Claims Tribunal determining the issues arising in application for compensation has, therefore, to come to its independent finding appreciating the evidence produced before it. The judgment of the criminal court can only show that the concerned driver was convicted or acquitted in the criminal case. At the most, the circumstance of the driver pleading guilty may be considered as one of the pieces of evidence to support the case of the claimant, but can never be the sole decisive factor qua negligent driving because, the negligence is required to be established by leading necessary independent evidence. 17. In case of M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, No.66, West Bouliward Road, Trichy V. N. Sathidevi & others, reported in (2004) 2 TN MAC 101, the High Court of Madras relying on decision of its Division Bench in case of The Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram V. Mohammed Jaffer, reported in (1995) SCC Online Mad. 1011, held that in the case of confession made by the driver before the Criminal 11 Court and when no evidence was let in to conclude that the vehicle was involved in the accident and the claimants not establishing independently before the Tribunal that the said vehicle was involved in the accident in criminal case, the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the vehicle. 18. In the instant case also, as discussed above, despite the appellants disputing the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of offending motorcycle, did not examine any witness to prove the said plea. Thus, except the confession statement of driver of other motorcycle involved in accident, there is no other material evidence on record in this regard. 19. In view of above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal, considering all the aspects of the matter, has correctly given a finding with respect to contributory negligence, which requires no interference of this Court. The appeals being sans merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge