Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:31197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2320 of 2019 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager - Branch Office, Gadhi Chowk, Near Traffic Police Office, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No.C.G./07/CA/2965) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Agam Nirmalkar S/o Ramji Nirmalkar Aged About 28 Years R/o Dabrapara, Bhilai -3, Thana- Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Munnalal Patel S/o Bal Govind Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Camp-1, Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Bearing No. C.G./28/C/0143) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents _______________________________________________________ : None appears
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 -6- 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 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. Considering the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the documents available on record submission of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle CG 07 CA 2965 has been wrongly involved in the accident is not acceptable. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that claimant suffered motor accidental injury by the vehicle CG 07 CA 2965. 13. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that in the discharge ticket/summary, there is mention of the fall from the vehicle, claimant has filed the discharge ticket summary as Ex.P-8 and discharge ticket as Ex.P-12. Ex.P-8 is -7- the discharge summary of Sparsh Multispecialty Hospital, Bhilai and Ex.P-12 is discharge ticket of Jeevan Deep Samiti Hospital which is a Govt. District Hospital, Durg. In Ex.P-8 there is mention that road traffic accident from bike on 08.01.2016 and nature of injury as crush injury right foot. As per pleading of claimant, he met with an accident with offending vehicle while he was travelling on motorcycle. Nature of injury mentioned in Ex.P-8 is reproduced as under: “Clinical Examination on Admission: - ….stable - ….Severe crush injury Rt. Foot. -crushed muscle & avulsed tendons all finger crush bone with vital crushed pleces at tarsomentatarsal level -..palpable” 14. From perusal of the nature of injury as mentioned in discharge summary would show that such type of injury may not result only because of fall from the motorcycle. Crush injury will come only when there is involvement of other vehicle. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case and medical evidence available on record, submission made by learned counsel for appellant- insurance company that from medical document it is appearing that the injury suffered by claimant was from due to falling from bike only is not acceptable. 16. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any error or infirmity in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that the claimant suffered motor accidental injury from the offending vehicle CG 07 CA 2965 driven by non-applicant No.1 and awarding compensation of -8- Rs.2,67,100/- to the claimant.
Arguments
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 08/07/2025 Heard. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.15 10:38:04 +0530 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/insurance company -2- challenging the award dated 03.10.2019 passed by learned Tenth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) in Claim Case No.217 of 2017. 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 Tenth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, pleading therein that on 08.01.2016 at around 08:00 a.m. claimant was going to attend his duty on his motorcycle No.CG-07/LY-9568 at a slow speed. When he reached near Government School Durga Mandir, driver (non-applicant No.1) of truck CG-07/CA-2965 (hereinafter referred as “offending vehicle”) driving the truck rashly and negligently, came in wrong direction and while turning sideways dashed the applicant’s motorcycle, due to which applicant’s suffered serious injuries near his ankle of his right leg and also suffered serious injuries on other parts of the body. He was admitted in Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai from 08.01.2016 to 01.02.2016, where he underwent an operation of his leg. At the time of accident, applicant was a healthy and strong person and was earning Rs. 7623/- per month by working as a planer (lathe) operator in BP Gupta Company, Industrial Area Bhilai. After the accidental injuries, he is unable to work. He suffered 22% permanent disability. He claimed for a total compensation of Rs. 37,00,000/- under various heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1 in his written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that he was driving his vehicle under the conditions of insurance policy, applicant himself -3- came in front of the vehicle driving rashly and negligently. There was no negligence on the part of the non-applicant No.1. Non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license, vehicle permit, fitness and insurance policy on the date of accident and the applicant has not suffered any disability. Applicant has deliberately made a false case to get compensation. 4. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company denied the pleadings in claim application of, occupation, income and age for want of documents, it was not noticed about accident. Compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. As per information, vehicle involved in accident is CG 07 CA 3965 but claim is filed against other vehicle CG 07 CA 2965. On the date of accident, there was no valid permit of offending vehicle and it was plied in breach of policy conditions. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,67,100/- and held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing claim application filed by claimant overlooking the fact that claimant has pleaded false fact in the claim application of, he meting with an accident with the offending -4- vehicle CG 07/CA/2965. He contended that initially in the FIR, number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 07 CA 3965. He next contended that learned Tribunal fell into error in not taking note of discharge summary/discharge ticket filed by claimant as Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-12 wherein there is mention of fall from offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the records of claim case. 8. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that FIR was lodged by Oham Nirmalkar and not by the appellant/claimant. In FIR it is mentioned that the claimant was dashed by the offending truck bearing CG 07 CA 3965, however, in other documents which is prepared by police during course of investigation, number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 07 CA 2965 and even in property seizure memo number is mentioned as CG 07 CA 2965 and not CG 07 CA 3965. In final report Ex.P-1 also number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 07 CA 2965. 9. From the aforementioned facts of case and pleading made in the claim application, it is appearing that only in one document i.e. FIR, number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 07 CA 3965 and in all other documents number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 07 CA 2965. While deciding the claim case, Claims Tribunal can consider and look into the document of criminal case also for arriving at a particular conclusion, however, it is for the Tribunal to consider the entire pleading and evidence available on record to arrive at a conclusion. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has observed that -5- 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 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
Decision
17. In the result, appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen