Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:30382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1181 of 2019 SBI General Insurance Company Limited Through In-Charge Officer, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Pujari Park, Pachpedi Naka, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur, Through Its Senior Executive Litigation And T.P. (West) S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Above SBI Main Branch, New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) (Insurer) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sushant Pal S/o Vimal Pal Aged About 32 Years Permanent Address Village And Post Damodarpur, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Bazarpara Beergaon, P.S. Khamtrai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Mukesh Lakra R/o Village Mado P.S. Aasta District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Abhishek Singh S/o Dinesh Singh R/o House No. 19/5 Ward No. 19 Bhouripara Ring Road Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.” 11. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596, while deciding the evidentiary value of FIR, 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 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 -6- 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.” 12. In view of the aforementioned facts and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, the ground taken by the appellant/Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in considering the documents of criminal case is not sustainable and is accordingly repelled. 13. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant that insurance company cannot held liable, it is settled law that in the event owner of vehicle purchases the insurance policy then it is the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, and to indemnify the owner of the vehicle under the provision of of the Act of 1988. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company against the impugned award. 15. Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen
Arguments
: Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 & 3 _______________________________________________________ : None appears though served S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.11 10:40:43 +0530 -2- 03/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging award of compensation passed by learned First Additional Presiding Officer of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 16.11.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.437 of 2016. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 /claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) pleading therein that on 22/08/2015 at about 10 o'clock in the night, on the main road of village Mafauli, police station Dhourpur, District Surguja, non- applicant no. 1 carelessly parked his vehicle Hywa No. CG 15 AC 3527 on the middle of the road without putting on parking lights and indicators, due to which, Bolero No. CG 15 CV 3017 collided with the Hywa and Sushant Pal, who was sitting in the Bolero, got seriously injured. Claimant Sushant Pal at the time of the said accident was a healthy person of 32 years of age, was working as a Mason and earning Rs. 9000/- per month by which he was maintaining himself and his family. Due to the injuries sustained in accident, he become permanently disabled and his future income has decreased which cannot be calculated. Claimant has prayed for total amount of compensation of Rs. 34,76,000/- from non-applicants. 3. Due to non-appearance of non-applicants No. 1 & 2 before the Claims Tribunal they were proceeded ex-parte. 4. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company in its written statement has -3- opposed the claim application and has pleaded that the driver of the truck number CG 15 AC 3527 was not at fault and the driver of the applicant's Bolero vehicle was responsible for the alleged accident. It has also taken the defence that the truck driver did not have a valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied against the conditions of registration, there was no valid fitness and permit of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, insurance company be exonerated from liability to pay amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident, in which Sushant Pal suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy has not been found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/ - which is put to challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the impugned award on the ground that offending truck insured by appellant was parked negligently by its driver and therefore it is the owner of offending vehicle who is vicariously liable and no liability can be fastened upon insurance company. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the facts and -4- circumstances of the case, oral and documentary evidence available on record has awarded compensation which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 9. Perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Tribunal in its award has decided the issue No.1 wherein it has been categorically recorded that on 22.08.2015, claimant Sushant (AW1) was sitting on his Bolero vehicle going to Bilaspur from Tatapani in the night at about 09-10 pm. When Bolero vehicle reached near village Mafouli, Rajpur it dashed with truck- Hywa parked on road without there being any parking light and any other indication. Accident of Bolero vehicle with truck is not in dispute. Finding recorded by learned Tribunal that truck was negligently parked on the road without parking light is also not in dispute . In the memo of appeal ground is taken that learned Tribunal has decided the issue and recorded a finding that there was negligence on the part of driver of truck only on the basis of document of criminal case. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has observed that Claims Tribunal can consider the papers of criminal case for arriving at conclusion considering the evidence available in claim case and held as under: “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis -5- done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by