[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Kalyani Sahu on 9 April, 2026

Digitally signed
YOGESH by YOGESH
TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.04.17
10:20:59 +0530

2026:CGHC:16241
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 1289 of 2018

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office -1,
Divisional Manager Kutchery Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of
Vehicle No. C.G. 04 H.C. 3214)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Kalyani Sahu W/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 43 Years
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Kanchana Sahu D/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 24 Years
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Tokes Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o
Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Tarun Kumar Sahu S/o Late Gurudayal Sahu, Aged About 19 Years
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Mowa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Mukesh Pandey S/o Ramneet Pandey Aged About 30 Years
Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Kechua Thana - Nai Gadhi District -
Riwa (Madhya Pradesh). Present Resident - Dolia Company, Siltara,
Thana - Dharsiwan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No.
C.G. 04-H.C.3214) (Driver)
6 - Dhiman Sen S/o Nikhil Sen Aged About 33 Years Occupation -
Vehicle Owner, Resident - Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04-H.C.3214) (Owner)
... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Arvind Panda and Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocates For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Judgment on Board 09.04.2026

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.12.2017 passed

by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Second

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.)

(hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case

No.28/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim

application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to

satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of this appeal are that on 25.06.2011, the

non-applicant No. 1, driving Truck bearing registration No. CG-04

-HC-3214 (for short, 'offending vehicle'), allegedly in a rash and

negligent manner, struck a motorcycle driven by the husband of

the claimant No.1, Gurudayal Sahu, resulting in the death of her

husband and injuries to the claimant. A report of the accident was

lodged with Police Station Dharsiwan, District Raipur. Based on

the report, a case was registered against non-applicant No. 1,

Mukesh Pandey, and a charge sheet was filed under Section

304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The claimants have filed claim application before the learned

Claims Tribunal stating therein that at the time of the accident, the

deceased was posted as Assistant Grade-2 in Chhattisgarh State

Power Company Limited, earning a monthly income of

Rs.62,082/-. With 12 years of service remaining, the deceased

was expected to earn approximately Rs.90,000/- per month

considering future promotions and an estimated 40% increase in

salary, which would have supported the claimants. It was further

pleaded that the deceased was 48 years of age on the date of the

accident and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,19,60,000/- from

the non-applicants jointly and severally.

4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 denied the claim, stating that on the

date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was holding a valid

driving license and operating the vehicle legally. The offending

vehicle was insured from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011, and according

to the insurance terms, non-applicant No. 3 was responsible for

third-party risks and property damage. They further contended

that the First Information Report mentioned a vehicle without a

number and "Mahamaya" written on it, and non-applicants were

not liable for payment of compensation.

5. Non-applicant No. 3/appellant herein, the insurance company,

denied the allegations, asserting that the deceased was himself

responsible for the accident and did not possess a driving license.

It further stated that the vehicle allegedly involved was seized six

months after the incident, was being used without fitness and

permits, and was parked at a private company at the time of the

accident. Accordingly, the claimants' application was liable to be

dismissed and it be exonerated to satisfy the liability to pay the

amount of compensation.

6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence

brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims

Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of

Rs.75,91,488/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date

of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability

to satisfy the amount of commendation upon the Insurance

Company i.e. the appellant herein.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that

the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident dated

25.06.2011, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay

compensation to the claimants. It is submitted that, immediately

after the accident, the First Information Report was lodged on the

same day, and the deceased's motorcycle was seized by the

police several months later. In contrast, the offending vehicle was

seized only after a delay of six months, without any substantive

basis, and solely on presumption. It has been clearly established

that the offending vehicle was within the premises of a private

company at the time of the alleged accident.

8. Further, it is submitted that the claimants failed to produce any

independent witness to substantiate their petition under Section

166 of the M.V. Act. The claimants, including the widow, and other

family members, have made contradictory statements before the

criminal authorities and the Claims Tribunal. Notably, the claimant

No.1 who was pillion-riding on the deceased's motorcycle could

not clearly specify whether the offending vehicle struck from the

front or the rear, whereas another witness stated that the collision

occurred from behind. He contends that, in compliance with

Section 134 of the M.V. Act, it was the duty of the owner and driver

of the offending vehicle to disclose the identity of the driver at the

time of the accident. No such disclosure was made. The basis for

the police seizure of the offending vehicle after six months remains

unexplained. The appellant has adduced evidence, including a

witness from the private company, who confirmed that the

offending vehicle was parked at the company premises on the

date and time of the alleged accident, and had come there for

loading goods.

9. It is submitted that the statements of the claimants' witnesses

regarding the registration number of the offending vehicle are

inconsistent and unreliable. One witness admitted that the number

plate was not clearly visible due to rain, and the affidavits relied

upon by the Tribunal were prepared after considerable time had

passed, indicating they were made after reflection and could not

be given full credence. Moreover, statements recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not mention the registration number, further

casting doubt on the claimants' assertions. The Tribunal's findings,

particularly in certain paragraphs of the award, are premised

solely on presumption that the offending vehicle was involved.

This approach is erroneous. The statement of the driver of the

offending vehicle, which is available on record, was not duly

considered by the Tribunal and ought to be examined in the

interest of justice. As such, the appeal be allowed and appellant

be exonerated to satisfy its liability.

10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a settled

position of law that in a motor accident claim petition, the initial

burden lies upon the claimants to establish, at least on a prima

facie basis, the factum of the accident and the involvement and

identity of the offending vehicle; only upon discharge of this

primary burden does the onus shift upon the opposite party to

rebut the same.

11. Reliance has been placed upon a catena of judgments rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to substantiate the submissions

advanced. In this regard, reference has been made to Vanita and

others v. M/s Shriram Insurance Company Limited and

another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1986, National Insurance

Company Limited v. Chamundeshwari and others, 2021 (4)

T.A.C. 367 (S.C.), Wakir Afrin (Minor) v. M/s National Insurance

Co. Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15447-47/2024

decided on 01.08.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has

delineated the governing principles relevant to the controversy at

hand. It is submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid

judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case and

lends substantial support to the stand taken by the appellant.

Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by

this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari Prasad and

others, 2010 (1) T.A.C.1002 (Chhatt.), wherein similar issues

came to be considered, and the legal position was reiterated in

consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is contended that the said judgment fortifies the submissions

advanced herein and clearly supports the relief sought in the

present proceedings.

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently opposes the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance

Company and submits that the findings recorded by the learned

Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence

available on record and do not warrant any interference. It is

contended that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the

accident stands duly proved from the consistent and cogent

testimonies of AW-1 Smt. Kalyani Sahu (pillion rider) and AW-2

Bhuneshwar Prashad Sahu (eye-witness), both of whom have

unequivocally deposed regarding the manner of accident and the

role of the offending vehicle. Their statements inspire confidence

and remain unshaken in cross-examination. Further, the prompt

lodging of FIR on the very same day and filing of charge-sheet

against the driver of the offending vehicle lends strong

corroboration to the case of the claimants.

13. Learned counsel further submits that the defence sought to be

raised by the Insurance Company, that the offending vehicle was

stationed at Godavari Power and Ispat at the time of accident, has

rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal. The witnesses examined

on behalf of the Insurance Company have failed to produce any

cogent or reliable documentary evidence to substantiate such

plea. On the contrary, their own witnesses have admitted material

contradictions, and no independent record has been brought on

record to establish that the vehicle was not present at the place of

occurrence. It is further argued that neither the owner nor the

driver of the offending vehicle has lodged any complaint before

any authority alleging false implication of the vehicle in the

accident, which clearly fortifies the case of the claimants. Even the

driver (NAW-1) has admitted pendency of criminal proceedings

against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and has not

taken any steps to challenge the same. He also submits that the

learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its powers under Sections

168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act by examining the

Investigating Officer and other police officials as Court witnesses,

and upon holistic appreciation of the entire material available on

record, has arrived at a just and proper finding that the offending

vehicle was involved in the accident.

14. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

(AIR 2018 SC 1900), wherein it has been held that the standard of

proof in motor accident claim cases is that of preponderance of

probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further

reliance is placed on Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation (2020) 13 SCC 486, wherein it has been

reiterated that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in such

proceedings and the Tribunal is required to adopt a pragmatic

approach.

15. Reliance is also placed on Geeta Dubey & Ors. vs. United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779), wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even in cases where

involvement of the vehicle is disputed, the claimants are only

required to establish their case on the touchstone of

preponderance of probability. Further reliance is placed on

Janabai vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC

512, wherein it has been held that failure of the owner to challenge

the implication of the vehicle or driver is a relevant circumstance to

uphold involvement of the vehicle.

16. On the issue of compassionate appointment, learned counsel

submits that the law is well settled that any benefit received on

account of compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from

the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. In this

regard, reliance has been placed on Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore

Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it has been categorically held that

compassionate appointment is not a pecuniary advantage liable

for deduction. The said principle has been consistently followed by

this Court in MAC No. 186 of 2013 as well as in Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitaichandra Saha & Ors. (MAC No. 43

of 2015).

17. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the

award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, proper and

based on sound legal principles, and therefore, the appeal

preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed.

18. Learned counsel for respondent No.6/owner of the offending

vehicle submits that the owner had no role in the alleged accident.

The offending vehicle was parked at the company premises at the

relevant time, as evidenced by a company vacancy slip and other

documentary records. The driver of the vehicle was not in the

control of the owner at the time of the incident, and no disclosure

was made by any person regarding the identity of the driver, in

accordance with Section 134 of the M.V. Act. It is further submitted

that the seizure of the offending vehicle six months after the

alleged accident was made without any substantive basis, relying

solely on presumption. Therefore, the owner cannot be held

vicariously liable for the alleged incident. The claimants have also

failed to produce any credible witness or evidence directly linking

the offending vehicle to the accident. It is lastly submitted that the

Claims Tribunal erred in attributing liability to the owner of the

offending vehicle, and the claim against the owner deserves to be

dismissed.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the claim case carefully.

20. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence adduced, and

documents available on record, it emerges that the core

controversy in the present appeal revolves around the involvement

of the offending vehicle in the accident dated 25.06.2011 and the

consequent liability fastened upon the appellant-Insurance

Company. The appellant has primarily assailed the award on the

ground that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the

accident and that its implication has been made on the basis of

delayed seizure and conjectures. On the other hand, the claimants

have relied upon the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses as well as

contemporaneous documentary evidence such as FIR, charge-

sheet, and other investigative materials to substantiate the

involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent

act of its driver. In this backdrop, the entire evidentiary matrix is

required to be appreciated holistically so as to ascertain whether

the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal suffers from

any illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence.

21. From perusal of the record, it is evident that a prompt First

Information Report (Ex. P/3) was lodged on the very same day of

the incident by the eyewitness namely Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu

(AW-2), who was closely trailing behind the motorcycle on which

the deceased Gurudayal Sahu and claimant Kalyani Sahu were

travelling. In the said FIR, the witness has clearly and categorically

stated that the accident was witnessed by several persons present

in the vicinity and that the truck in question, driven in a rash and

negligent manner, had struck the motorcycle from behind,

resulting in the fatal injuries to the deceased. The immediate

lodging of FIR lends considerable credibility to the version of the

eyewitness and rules out the possibility of deliberation or

embellishment at a later stage. The investigation conducted by the

police authorities culminated in filing of a charge-sheet against the

driver of the offending vehicle as well as the vehicle itself, thereby

prima facie affirming the involvement of the said truck in the

accident.

22. Further, the testimony of AW-1 Kalyani Sahu, who was herself an

injured pillion rider, also supports the occurrence of the accident,

though certain minor inconsistencies regarding the manner of

impact may exist due to the traumatic nature of the incident.

However, the consistent and categorical version of AW-2

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, who was an independent eyewitness

following the deceased's motorcycle at a close distance, clearly

establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact

that the accident occurred due to its rash and negligent driving.

His deposition inspires confidence and finds corroboration from

the FIR and police investigation records.

23. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Insurance

Company that the vehicle was seized after a period of six months

and therefore its involvement becomes doubtful cannot, by itself,

discredit the otherwise cogent and consistent ocular and

documentary evidence on record. Delay in seizure or

investigation, in absence of any material to show fabrication or

manipulation, cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the

claimants when the occurrence of the accident and involvement of

the offending vehicle stands duly established through credible

eyewitness testimony and contemporaneous records.

24. Accordingly, upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence on

record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Claims

Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the offending

vehicle was involved in the accident in question and that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of its driver.

25. Once this foundational burden stood duly discharged, the onus

clearly shifted upon the appellant-Insurance Company to dislodge

the said evidence by leading credible and convincing material.

However, the appellant has failed to rebut the same in any legally

sustainable manner. The plea regarding delayed seizure of the

vehicle, its alleged presence in a private company premises, and

inconsistencies in witness statements, remain in the realm of

conjectures and have not been substantiated by any

unimpeachable evidence so as to discredit the otherwise

consistent ocular and documentary evidence available on record.

Mere delay in seizure or investigation, in absence of proof of

fabrication or mala fides, cannot be treated as fatal to the

claimants' case.

26. The testimony of AW-2, an independent eyewitness, inspires

confidence and finds due corroboration from the FIR and other

contemporaneous records. Minor inconsistencies in the version of

AW-1, being an injured witness, are natural and do not go to the

root of the matter so as to disbelieve the occurrence of the

accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly

appreciated the entire evidence in its correct perspective and

arrived at a well-reasoned finding regarding negligence and

involvement of the offending vehicle.

27. Upon an independent, meticulous and comprehensive re-

appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court

finds that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are

firmly founded on cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence

and are fully in consonance with the settled principles governing

adjudication of motor accident claim cases. The Tribunal has

rightly appreciated the ocular as well as documentary evidence in

its correct perspective. The prompt lodging of the First Information

Report on the very same day of the incident, the consistent and

trustworthy testimony of AW-2 (independent eyewitness), the

corroborative version of AW-1 (injured witness), and the filing of

charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle

collectively establish, on the touchstone of preponderance of

probability, the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash

and negligent manner in which it was driven.

28. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Mangla Ram (supra) squarely applies, wherein it has been held

that the issue of negligence in motor accident claim cases is to be

decided on the basis of preponderance of probability and not on

the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The filing of

charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle is a

relevant and significant circumstance pointing towards his

complicity.

29. The said principle has been reiterated in Ranjeet (supra), wherein

it has been held that once a charge-sheet has been filed against

the driver, the same itself constitutes sufficient prima facie

evidence of negligent driving, and even non-examination of

eyewitnesses would not be fatal to the claim.

30. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance

Company regarding delayed seizure of the offending vehicle and

its alleged presence within the premises of a private company at

the relevant time has rightly been disbelieved by the learned

Tribunal. The evidence adduced in support of such plea does not

inspire confidence and falls far short of the standard required to

rebut the case of the claimants. No unimpeachable documentary

evidence has been brought on record to conclusively establish

that the vehicle was stationed elsewhere at the time of the

accident. On the contrary, the admissions of the witnesses

examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, coupled with the

absence of any complaint by the owner or driver alleging false

implication of the vehicle, significantly weaken the defence sought

to be projected.

31. In this context, reliance placed by the claimants on Janabai

(supra), is apposite, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

failure of the owner to challenge the implication of the vehicle or to

initiate any proceedings for quashing of FIR is a relevant

circumstance to uphold the involvement of the vehicle in the

accident.

32. This Court further finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has

adopted a holistic and pragmatic approach while appreciating the

entire evidence on record, which is in consonance with the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita (supra),

wherein it has been categorically held that in motor accident claim

cases, the Tribunal is not required to adopt a hyper-technical

approach or insist upon strict rules of evidence as applicable in

criminal trials. Once the foundational facts regarding occurrence

of the accident are established, the Tribunal is required to

determine the compensation on a just and reasonable basis.

33. Further, in Geeta Dubey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

reiterated that even where the involvement of the vehicle is

disputed, the claimants are only required to establish their case

on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and not

beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been emphasized that minor

discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses

cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise credible case.

34. In the present case, the testimony of AW-2 Bhuneshwar Prasad

Sahu, being an independent eyewitness, inspires full confidence

and stands duly corroborated by the FIR and the charge-sheet

filed by the police authorities. The minor inconsistencies in the

deposition of AW-1 Smt. Kalyani Sahu, who is an injured witness

and had undergone a traumatic experience, are but natural and

do not go to the root of the matter. The learned Claims Tribunal

has rightly appreciated these aspects and has drawn conclusions

which are not only plausible but also legally sustainable.

35. Once the claimants have successfully discharged the initial burden

of proving the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of

the offending vehicle, the onus shifted upon the appellant-

Insurance Company to rebut the same by leading cogent and

convincing evidence. However, the appellant has failed to

discharge such burden. The pleas raised by the appellant

regarding alleged contradictions in witness statements, delay in

seizure of the vehicle, and its purported presence at another

location remain unsubstantiated and are based merely on

conjectures and surmises, which cannot dislodge the otherwise

consistent and credible evidence led by the claimants.

36. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court

finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a just, fair and

reasonable compensation after duly considering the income of the

deceased, his age, future prospects, and the dependency of the

claimants. No material has been placed before this Court to

demonstrate that the compensation so awarded is either

excessive or contrary to settled principles of law.

37. On the issue of compassionate appointment, the contention of the

appellant also deserves to be rejected in view of the authoritative

pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar

(supra), wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment

cannot be treated as a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction

while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The said principle has been consistently followed and reiterated

by various High Courts, including this Court, and therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly not made any deduction on that count.

38. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the impugned award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the

learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur

(C.G.) is based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct

application of law. The findings recorded therein do not suffer from

any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting

interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

39. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and

is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims

Tribunal is affirmed in toto, and the appellant-Insurance Company

shall remain liable to satisfy the awarded compensation along with

interest, in accordance with law.

40. There shall be no order as to costs.

41. The record of the concerned Claims Tribunal be sent back

forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

                                                              Sd/-       /-
                                               (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
                                                          Judge
Yogesh