Chattisgarh High Court

Branch Manager vs Smt. Dipti Chandrakar on 24 June, 2025

                                                           1




                                                                     2025:CGHC:27522
                                                                                    NAFR

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            MAC No. 1714 of 2019

            1 - Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited , 4th Floor, Maruti
            Heights, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 06 / G.
            A. / 7127 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               ... Applicant
                                                     Versus
            1 - Smt. Dipti Chandrakar Wd/o Late Revaram @ Rahul Chandrakar, Aged About 31
            Years R/o Ward No. 14, Gunjpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
            Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh


            2 - Nikhil Chandrakar S/o Late Revaram Chandrakar Aged About 8 Years Minor,
            Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dipti Chandrakar, R/o
            Ward No. 14, Gunjpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
            Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh


            3 - Nischay Chandarakar S/o Late Revaram Chandrakar Aged About 4 Years Minor,
            Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dipti Chandrakar, R/o
            Ward No. 14, Gunjpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
            Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh


            4 - Lakshmichand Chandrakar S/o Dhanau Chandrakar Aged About 59 Years R/o
            Ward No. 14, Gunjpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
            Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh


            5 - Hulas Chandrakar W/o Lakshmichand Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o
            Ward No. 14, Gunjpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
            Chhattisgarh. (Claimants ), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
                                           2

6 - Ajay Tiwari @ Ajay Maharaj S/o Late Anand Tiwari Aged About 32 Years R/o
Ward No. 12, Vinayak Nagar, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ( Driver
Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 06 / G. A. / 7127 ), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh


7 - Smt. Manju Sahu W/o Late Hemant Sahu, R/o Village - Kona, Post - Khatti,
Thana - Khallari, Tahsil - Bagbahara, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ( Owner
Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 06 / G. A. / 7127 ), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 24/06/2025

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging

the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in its

award dated 06.05.2019 passed by the 4 th Additional Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.

697/2018 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.

12,79,600/- as amount of compensation to the respondents.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 26.05.2018 at about 09:00 to

10:00 P.M., Revaram Chandrakar (since deceased) along with the

Respondent No. 6 herein was going towards Mahasamund from Village

Achola in the motorcycle of the Respondent No. 6 bearing registration

no. CG 06 GA 7127 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle).

When they reached near Bhoring Mandi, at that time, due to rash and

negligent driving of the Respondent No. 6, the offending vehicle got

imbalanced, lost its control and Revaram Chandrakar and the

Respondent No. 6 fell from the vehicle. In accident, Revaram

Chandrakar suffered grievous injuries, he was taken to hospital for

treatment where, during treatment he died. Subsequent to the said

accident, an FIR bearing Crime No. 177/2018, P.S. Tumgaon, District -

Mahasamund was registered for the offence punishable under Sections

304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the

learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the offending vehicle

is involved in the alleged accident. He contended that the learned Claims

Tribunal fell into error in not appreciating in appropriate manner that the date

of accident is 26.05.2018 whereas, the Non-Applicant No. 1 has been shown

to be arrested in the instant crime subject matter of claim case on

06.05.2018. From the face of the arrest memo placed on record as Ex. D/6, it

is apparent that the claimants only to take/garb the compensation has falsely

implicated the vehicle alleged to be driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 and

owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2, the vehicle insured by the

appellant/Insurance Company is not involved in the accident and therefore,

the learned Claims Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award

overlooking the documentary evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants

would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the

pleadings and evidence has rightly passed the impugned award. The learned

Claims Tribunal has appreciated the defence taken by the insurance

company and the documents filed as Ex. D/1 to D/6. He also contended that

the Insurance Company has not submitted the investigation report of the

investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. In all the cases reported

to the concerned police station, the appellant/Insurance Company normally

get the accident investigated and report is accordingly submitted by the

Investigator appointed by the company. In absence of the investigation

report, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot take a plea of false

implication of the offending vehicle in the alleged incident.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records

of the claim case.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal while dealing with the issue with regard to the

involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident while deciding the

Issue No. 1 & 2 had considered that the claimant has produced the

copy of the documents of the criminal case in Crime No. 117/2018 and

the Criminal Case No. 1231/2018. In the F.I.R. lodged on 26.05.2018,

there is mention that the offending vehicle was driven by the Non-

Applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently and due to which, the deceased

Revaram Chandrakar suffered grievous injuries over his person.

7. The Claims Tribunal has further considered the evidence of Punit

Rathore (NAW-3) for the Insurance Company who in his evidence had

admitted that the accident was got investigated by the Investigator and

from the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005

(Ex. D/5), it is not appearing that the offending vehicle is involved in the

accident and further, the date of arrest mentioned in Ex. D/6 is prior to

the date of accident and therefore, it cannot co-relate to the alleged

accident. Learned Claims Tribunal have also considered the evidence

of Punit Rathore (NAW-3) who admitted that he has not placed on

record the copy of the investigation report, have not lodged a report to

the higher officials with regard to the implication of the offending vehicle

bearing registration no. CG 06 GA 7127.

8. With regard to the other submissions made by the counsel for the

appellant that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. as the date of

accident is of 26.05.2018 and the report is lodged only on 15.07.20218

has been dealt with by the Learned Claims Tribunal in para 14 of the

impugned award. Learned Claims Tribunal considered that the date of

arrest as mentioned in the arrest memo (Ex. D/6) appears to be

erroneous because the other description of the offence, crime number,

the date of accident etc. has been correctly mentioned and therefore,

have considered the arrest of the Non-Applicant No. 1 with regard to

the crime registered due to the accident subject matter of the claim

application and further, only because the report is lodged against the

unknown vehicle, the First Information Report and the Final Report

cannot be disbelieved which is submitted after completion of the

investigation. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal

is correct in the facts of the case. Merely lodging the report with some

delay in itself will not be fatal for deciding the claim application seeking

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When otherwise,

after investigation of the crime, final report is submitted by the police

against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The claim cases

are to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probability.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance

Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held thus:

"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 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."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors.

reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 while considering the ground of delay

raised by the opposite party therein, has observed thus:-

" 17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim."

The claimants to prove the claim application has submitted the

documents Final Report (Ex. P/1), F.I.R. (Ex. P/2), Discharge Summary

(Ex. P/3), MLC Report (Ex. P/4), Intimation Report (Ex. P/5), Morgue

Intimation (Ex. P/6), Body Supurdnama (Ex. P/7), Check List of Morgue

Intimation (Ex. P/8), Medical Prescription (Ex. P/9), Application for Post

Mortem (Ex. P/10) and Property Seizure Memo (Ex. P/11) and have

examined witnesses Smt. Deepti Chandrakar (AW-1) and Tilak Ram

(AW-2).

11.Since the computation of the amount of compensation/quantum of

compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not put to

challenge, this Court is not dealing the same.

12. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere