Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kali Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:9671)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2841 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kali Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:9671) on 19 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:9671]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2745/2025
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Manager Oic Ltd. Jodhpur,
Residency Road Jodhpur
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       Smt. Kali Devi W/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 27
         Years, (Wife) R/o Rawatsar, Tehsil And District Barmer
         (Raj.)
2.       Ms Seema D/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 7 Years,
         Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Daughter) R/o Rawatsar,
         Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
3.       Ms Deepika D/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 4 Years,
         Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Daughter) R/o Rawatsar,
         Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
4.       Master Manish S/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 3
         Years, Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Son) R/o Rawatsar,
         Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
5.       Gomi W/o Bhagaram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rawatsar,
         Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
6.       Sbm Nirman Construction Co Pvt Ltd, Govindtola
         Dhanupali, Sambalpur (Orissa) (Owner Od-15-W-5043)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Saurabh Surana with Mrs. Shagun
                                   Mathur & Ms. Aashima Choubey
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Mohan Lal Khatri with Mr. Gaurav
                                   Ranka



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Judgment

19/02/2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant - Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd., challenging the Judgment and Award dated

20.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer

in M.A.C.T. Original Case No. 126/2024 (Kali Devi & Ors. vs. SBM

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (2 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

Nirmaan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), whereby the claim

petition has been partly allowed and compensation of

₹19,99,180/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has

been granted in favour of the respondents-claimants, fastening

joint and several liability upon the appellant-non-claimant No. 2

and respondent No. 6-non-claimant No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the claimants, who are widow, minor children,

and mother of deceased Tikuram, filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act claiming compensation of ₹1,32,11,000/- on

account of his death in a motor accident dated 14.09.2023. It was

averred that deceased, aged 29 years, was employed as a driver

and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. On 14.09.2023 at about

2:00 PM, while Tikuram was driving truck No. RJ-04-GA-5626 on

NH-53, a dumper bearing No. OD-15-W-5043, allegedly being

driven rashly and at excessive speed, crossed the center line near

Kharmanda Chowk and collided with his vehicle. Both vehicles

sustained damage and Tikuram suffered grievous injuries. He was

taken to HDH Kuchinda Hospital, where he was declared dead. An

FIR was lodged at Jamankira Police Station under Sections 279

and 304A of I.P.C., in which the police after investigation

submitted charge-sheet against driver of the offending dumper.

3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance

Company as well as respondent No. 6-non-claimant, the

owner/driver of the offending dumper. Non-claimant No. 1

contended that accident occurred solely due to the negligence of

the deceased Tikuram and not due to any fault of the dumper

driver. In the alternative, it was submitted that as the dumper

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (3 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

was insured with non-claimant No. 2, the entire liability, if any,

would rest upon the insurer.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company admitted the existence of

a valid insurance policy covering the dumper but denied the other

allegations. It asserted that accident resulted from the negligence

of Tikuram and not from the dumper driver, and therefore, it was

not liable to pay compensation. The insurer also sought exemption

from liability on the ground of alleged breach of the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy.

5. After framing the issues and adducing the evidence of the

parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded

compensation of ₹19,99,180/- with interest at 6% per annum,

holding the appellant and respondent No. 6 jointly and severally

liable. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been

filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant confines the arguments to

the ground of contributory negligence and submits that tribunal

erred in fastening entire liability upon the appellant-Insurance

Company without properly appreciating the factual matrix. There

was no independent eyewitness to the accident. The only

witnesses examined, A.W. 1 Smt. Kali Devi (wife of deceased) and

A.W. 2 - Hukam Dev Saran, admittedly were not present at the

time of accident. Despite this, the Tribunal relied solely on

claimants' witnesses without any independent corroboration,

which is legally unsustainable.

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (4 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

8. Drawing attention of this Court towards Site Plan (Ex.8),

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred

in placing sole reliance upon the site plan, which was prepared 10

days after the accident and was not supported by any eyewitness

or independent forensic evidence. It is contended that the police

presented challan against both drivers, yet the Tribunal decided

Issue No. 1 entirely against the appellant. It is argued that a site

plan unsupported by direct evidence cannot be the sole basis for

determining negligence.

9. It is further submitted that A.W. 1 - Smt. Kali Devi admitted

in her cross-examination that after investigation, the police filed a

challan against her deceased husband, Tikuram. However, the

Tribunal failed to appreciate this crucial admission, which clearly

indicates contributory fault on the part of the deceased.

10. Learned counsel further submits that present is a case of

head-on collision, where principle of contributory negligence will

apply. The site plan clearly indicate that truck in which deceased

was travelling, encroached upon the opposite carriageway

immediately prior to the collision. It is argued that in cases of

head-on collision, the principle of contributory negligence must

ordinarily be applied and liability apportioned accordingly.

11. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the

appellant relies upon the following decisions :-

(i) Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3731-3732 of 2002) decided on 01.03.2006

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (5 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

(ii) Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. Reported in (AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2293)

(iii) United India Insurance Company vs. Lalita (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2314/2018)

(iv) Asuri and others vs. Chairman RSRTC and others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1197/2007) decided on 21.10.2019

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-

claimants submits that a plain reading of the site plan clearly

establishes that the dumper driver was driving rashly and

negligently and, after entering the wrong side of the road, collided

with the truck driven by the deceased, thereby causing the

accident. It is, therefore, submitted that merely because the

accident was a head-on collision, the principle of contributory

negligence cannot be automatically invoked in the absence of

cogent evidence to that effect. It is thus, contended that the

tribunal, after careful and comprehensive appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence on record, has rightly delivered the

Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2025, granting just

compensation and fastening joint and several liability upon the

appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the offending

vehicle. It is urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are

findings of fact based on proper assessment of the evidence and in

accordance with the settled principles governing motor accident

claims. It is therefore prayed that appeal of the appellant may be

dismissed.

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (6 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have

carefully perused the material available on record.

14. The principal question which arises for determination in the

present appeal is whether the Tribunal committed any error in

holding the driver of the offending dumper solely negligent and in

fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-Insurance

Company and the owner of the dumper.

15. It is to be noted that proceedings under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of

proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof

beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is required to assess

negligence on the basis of overall probabilities emerging from the

record.

16. The contention of the appellant that there was no

independent eyewitness and therefore negligence was not proved,

does not merit acceptance. It is not in dispute that an FIR was

lodged immediately after the accident and during the course of

investigation, site plan (Ex.8) was prepared. A perusal of the site

plan reveals that accident in the present case occurred at place

marked as "O" and the width of the road at the place of accident

has been mentioned as 7.2 meters. Further, it reveals that at the

time of accident, truck was at the place marked as "O" and was in

its correct side of the road towards its own side of the center line,

whereas, dumper while being driven at high speed and coming

from the wrong direction, collided with the truck and thus, it

appears that there cannot be any negligency on the part of the

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (7 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

truck's driver. The appellant did not examine the dumper driver to

rebut the allegations of negligence nor did it produce any cogent

contrary evidence.

17. As regards the argument that the site plan was prepared

after ten days and cannot be relied upon, this Court finds that the

Tribunal has not based its finding solely upon the site plan. Rather,

the site plan has been read in conjunction with other evidence.

Mere delay in preparation of the site plan, in absence of any

material contradiction, does not render it unreliable.

18. The submission regarding filing of challan against the

deceased also does not advance the case of the appellant. The

findings in criminal proceedings are not conclusive in civil claim

proceedings. The Tribunal has independently appreciated the

evidence and returned a finding of negligence against the dumper

driver.

19. Coming to the plea of contributory negligence, it is true that

in certain cases of head-on collision, courts have apportioned

liability where evidence indicated negligence on both sides.

However, contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely

because the accident was a head-on collision. It must be

established on the basis of cogent material demonstrating fault on

the part of the deceased.

20. In the present case, the material on record, particularly the

site plan, indicates that the dumper had entered the wrong side of

the road prior to the collision. No reliable evidence has been led by

the appellant to show that the deceased encroached upon the

opposite carriageway or contributed to the accident. In absence of

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (8 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

such evidence, the plea of contributory negligence remains a mere

assertion.

21. Though, there is no conflict with the position of law laid down

in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant but same are distinguishable on facts. In those cases,

there was clear evidence indicating negligence on the part of both

drivers or there existed substantial material creating doubt

regarding exclusive negligence. In the present case, however, the

site plan consistently attribute fault to the dumper driver, and no

rebuttal evidence has been produced. Therefore, the ratio of the

cited judgments does not apply to the facts of the present case.

22. This Court further finds that the appellant has admitted the

existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending

dumper on the date of accident. No breach of policy conditions has

been established by leading satisfactory evidence. In such

circumstances, the fastening of joint and several liability upon the

insurer along with the owner cannot be faulted.

23. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, neither

any ground has been raised nor same has been shown to be

excessive or contrary to settled principles. The compensation

awarded appears to be just and reasonable.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the findings recorded by the tribunal are

based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from

perversity or illegality.

25. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9671] (9 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]

The impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2025 passed by

the tribunal is affirmed.

26. Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

27. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along

with the original record to the Tribunal forthwith.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 6-/Jitender//-

(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)