• Ramlakhan Sahu S/o Sampatram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Amali Thana And v. 1. Bedram Yadav, S/o Late Harprasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Amali, Thana &
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 678 of 2019 • Ramlakhan Sahu S/o Sampatram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Amali Thana And Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Appellant versus 1. Bedram Yadav, S/o Late Harprasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Amali, Thana & Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Smt. Shiv Kumari Yadav, W/o Late Bedram Yadav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Amali, Thana & Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. Mahaveer Bhanu, S/o Chaitan Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Amali, Thana & Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 4. Harishchand Nishad, S/o Tijauram Nishad, R/o Turma, Post Datan, District Baloda-Bazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgah (Driver). 5. H.D.P.C. Agro General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, R/o Laxmi Tower Near Triveni Bhavan Byapar Vihar Bilaspur, Thana Tarbahar, Tahsil & Disrtict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.P. Sannat, counsel appears on behalf of For Respondent No.4 : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, counsel appears on Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. The appellant, owner of the offending tractor, has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.255/2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application seeking compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) in part, awarded Rs.9,78,952/- as total compensation and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., non- applicants No.1 & 4. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.2016, when Dhananjay Yadav was returning from agriculture field of Rajendra Bhaina after answering nature’s call, at the relevant time non applicant No.1, drove his tractor bearing Registration No.CG-22-B-0105, in rash and negligent manner due to which, tractor got disbalanced and the Trolley bearing Registration No.CG-10-AD-8175, attached to it, got disconnected and hit deceased Dhananjay Yadav, as a result of which he died on the spot. A claim petition was filed by the claimants, who are claimants/parents of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act 1988, before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.22,54,000/- on the ground that prior to the death, the deceased was working as labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.2 submitted reply to the application denying the pleadings further pleaded that the offending tractor was given in exchange to Raj Aysar Tractor, Agency Masturi in exchange and 3 purchased new tractor. He also handed over the papers of tractor to the Raj Aysar Agency, as such non-applicant No.2 is not having any liability and prayed for dismissal of claim against him. 4. Non-applicant No.4 submitted reply to the claim application denying the pleadings of claim application and further pleaded that the trolley owned by him was in physical possession of non-applicant No.2, and therefore, liability is upon the non-applicant No.2 & 5/insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.5 submitted reply to the claim application and pleaded that trolley was insured in name of non-applicant No.4. Deceased was travelling on trolley as gratuitous passenger. The policy issued was third party liability policy, and therefore, owner of the tractor and its insurance company, non-applicant No.1 was proceeded ex parte. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the claimants and the non-applicants No.2, 4 & 5 held that the tractor was insured with the non-applicant No.5/insurance company for agricultural purpose, on the date of the accident, it was being used for commercial purpose, the deceased was travelling on the offending tractor-trolley. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part, recording a finding that offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions exonerated the insurance company, awarded total sum of Rs.9,78,952/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6%. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle would submit that on the date of accident, the offending tractor was insured with respondent No.5/insurance company, copy of Insurance Policy is 4 marked as Ex.P/2. In the claim application there is specific pleading that while the deceased was returning after answering the nature’s call in the agricultural field, the tractor-trolley driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 turned over the deceased as a result, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on spot. It is contention of the counsel for the appellant that Claims Tribunal considering the FIR and other documents prepared by the police, placed before the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded finding that the deceased was occupant of the tractor-trolley. He next contended that there is no admissible evidence available in the record to suggest that at the time of accident the trolley was loaded with any goods/material, so as to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. Hence both the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal to exonerate the insurance company from its liability are erroneous. Hence, it be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposing the submission of the counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the documentary evidence available on record, i.e., copy of FIR, statement of Balram Yadav and Anurag Sahu recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police during investigation of criminal case, has correctly arrived at a conclusion that at the time of accident deceased was travelling on the tractor and the tractor was being taken to Arpa River for transporting sand. He also pointed out that the insurance policy filed as Ex.P/10 is a liability only policy and it is not issued for the commercial use of the trailer. Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured. 5 9. Mr. K. P. Sahu, counsel for the respondent No.4/driver, supporting the award, would submit that he was not driving the tractor at the time of accident. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 11. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that the claimants in their claim application have pleaded that their son while returning from agricultural field after answering the nature’s call met with an accident as the trolley turned over him and he died. The learned Claims Tribunal also concluded that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by its driver and in the said accident the deceased came under the trolley and died. It is nowhere mentioned that at the time of accident, the trolley was loaded with sand, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the trolley at the time of accident was empty and attached with tractor engine. It is also undisputed fact that the tractor-trolley met with an accident and over turned in the agricultural field. The learned Claims Tribunal has recorded finding, of the breach of policy conditions, considering the contents of the First Information Report Ex.P/1 & Merg Intimation Ex.P/2 and the statement of Balram Yadav (Ex.D/1) and Anurag Sahu (Ex.D/3). These documents are prepared by the police, but none of the police personnel was examined as a witness, nor Balram Yadav & Anurag Sahu, whose statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/3 was considered by the Claims Tribunal, were examined before the Claims Tribunal. Hence, the contents of the documents Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/3 remained unproved, as the same not been proved in accordance with law and thus, no reliance can be placed on the same. 6 12. The contents of FIR (Ex.P/1) relied upon by the Claims Tribunal would only show that the informant father of the deceased was not the eye- witness to the accident, he was informed by the third person that his son came under the tractor-trolley and died in the agricultural field. It further mentions that upon verifying the fact it came to his knowledge that he was travelling on tractor along with Balram Yadav and Anurag Sahu. The best witness, who could have proved the fact of travelling of deceased on the tractor-trolley, i.e., Balram and Anurag has not been examined by insurance company. 13. The Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer, reported in 2006 ACJ 803, has observed in para 12 as under:- “12. In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of F.I.R. in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of F.I.R. and held as under:- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was 7 going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.” 15. Considering the aforementioned facts, the evidence available on record of claim case and further the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme, in the considered opinion of this Court the documents which were relied by the Claims Tribunal, i.e., Copy of FIR (Ex.P/1), Merg Intimation (Ex.P/2) and the statement of Balram Yadav & Anurag Sahu (Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/3; respectively) are not admissible documentary evidence, and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in relying upon those documents to record a finding that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was being used in breach of policy conditions, hence, the said finding is not sustainable and is set aside. 16. The ground of breach of policy conditions is pleaded by the respondent No.5/insurance company in its reply, and therefore, the burden was upon the respondent No.5/insurance company to prove the fact pleaded in the reply by placing cogent and admissible evidence before the Claims Tribunal, in which the insurance company utterly failed. As on the date of accident the trolley under which the deceased came 8 under and died was insured by respondent No.5, it will be liability upon the insurance company to satisfy the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the liability fastened upon the owner of the offending tractor-trolley is hereby set aside and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon the respondent No.5/insurance company. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA