Prakash Vs Itwar Lal — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Prakash Vs Itwar Lal — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Claims Tribunal's finding that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for computation of compensation upon appreciation of the evidence after hearing all parties, with the parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13th October 2025; the appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application on the ground that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, non-applicant No. 1. +2 more

Court's answer

Pleadings in the claim application read with the facts of the accident recorded in F.I.R. Ext. A-1 (lodged on 18.03.2017 at about 07:15 pm, within less than two hours of the accident) make it apparent that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that after the accident the F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle and, after completion of investigation, a final report was submitted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC against non-applicant No. 1, showing that the police found he had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident in which the claimant suffered injuries.

Key takeaways

Endorsing the Supreme Court decisions in Mangla Ram (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Meera Bai (2025 INSC 600), police records i.e. F.I.R./charge-sheet collected during investigation may be looked into by the Tribunal; filing of a charge-sheet prima facie points to complicity in negligent/rash driving and is relevant evidence, and eyewitnesses will not be available in all cases.ratio¶17
Non-applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (driver, owner and insurer) never entered the witness box to prove their plea that the accident occurred due to the claimant's negligence; they were proceeded ex parte and, per the order-sheet dated 14.10.2019, declined to examine any witnesses, leaving the Tribunal's adverse inference unsupported by any evidence brought by them.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against rejection of a Section 166 claim – Claims Tribunal (Katghora) dismissed the claim observing smell of alcohol from the claimant's mouth and variance between the F.I.R. and his testimony – High Court (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.): F.I.R. Ext. A-1 lodged within about two hours of the accident records that the offending pickup CG11 AC 6155 rashly and negligently dashed the claimant near Bhadra Chowk; AW-1 (claimant), AW-2 Laldas and AW-3 Bundlal (father) attest the incident; driver and owner were proceeded ex parte and examined no witness; a final report/charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC was filed against the driver – relying on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025 INSC 600), police records i.e. F.I.R./charge-sheet may be looked into and a filed charge-sheet prima facie points to complicity in rash/negligent driving – mere smell of alcohol cannot establish drunken driving absent a test showing alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood as mandated by Section 185 – contradictions between the F.I.R. and oral version are immaterial since both consistently establish the offending vehicle's involvement – the Tribunal's finding of no rash and negligent driving is unsustainable and is set aside; the case is remitted for computation of compensation with opportunity of hearing to all parties, parties to appear on 13th October 2025.

1 / 7

2025:CGHC:40186

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 19 of 2020

Prakash S/o Bundlal Aged About 37 Years Caste- Panika, R/o VillageBhadra (Bagahi), Post- Pali, Chowki- Korbi, Police Station- Passan, DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellant/ Applicant-Claimant

versus

Itwar Lal S/o Santram Sarthi Aged About 27 Years Caste- Sarthi, R/o Iraf, Police Station And Tahsil- Pali, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ( Driver )

Suresh Soni S/o Kartik Ram Soni, Caste- Soni, R/o Village- Pamgarh, Near Petrol Pump, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ),

United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer )

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Digitally signed by PAWAN Judgment On Board KUMAR JHA

11/08/2025

Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 06.11.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 161/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal rejected the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988.

2 / 7

Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.03.2017 at about 05:30 pm in the evening, when appellant was returning to his house at village Bhadra, a pickup vehicle bearing number CG11 AC 6155 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by its driver nonapplicant No. 1 rashly and negligently hit the applicant-claimant near Bhadra Chowk, and caused accident. In the accident, applicant-claimant suffered grievous injuries over several parts of his body.

An application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by applicantclaimant, seeking compensation of ₹ 10,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident he was a healthy person aged about 37 years. He was doing the work of conductor with Adarsh Bus Service and earning ₹ 16,000 per month.

Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of applicant himself/ driver of motorcycle bearing number CG16 B 6490. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1/ driver was possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured by non-applicant No. 3.

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, thus, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if any. It is also pleaded that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle driven by applicant have not been made party.

3 / 7

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that claimant failed to prove permanent disability as a result of grievous injuries received by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No. 1, owned by non-applicant No. 2. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, dismissed the claim application.

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application in its entirety only on assumption that claimant was under influence of liquor as the doctor while examining applicant noted smell of alcohol coming out from his mouth and further that the version of F.I.R. is different than the evidence of claimant/ applicant. He contended that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in considering that there is evidence in record to prove that the appellant was under the influence of liquor above the permissible limit. Claims Tribunal failed to consider that against the accident, F.I.R. was lodged and police after completion of investigation has also submitted charge-sheet against non-applicant No. 1/driver of offending vehicle. When accident is proved, Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the entire claim.

Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2- driver and owner of the offending vehicle vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that the claimant/ appellant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. They contended that the claim application is filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and therefore prove of rash and negligent driving by driver of other vehicle is sine quo non for awarding the claim. It is also contended that the Claims Tribunal has correctly recorded that the story narrated in the F.I.R. and the facts with rgard to accident as stated in the

4 / 7

evidence by the claimant is contradictory and therefore finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in para-11 of the impugned award cannot be said to be erroneous.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would also oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the motor accidental injury suffered by claimant due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1 (driver of offending vehicle) is not proved. In support of his contention, he referred the contents of F.I.R., evidence of AW-1 (applicant), AW-2, Lal Das.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case.

Perusal of pleadings made in the claim application would show that claimant in this appeal has pleaded that on 18.03.2017 at about 05:30 pm when he was riding on motor cycle and reached near Bhadra Chowk, offending vehicle coming from opposite direction dashed him due to which he fell down along with motorcycle on road and suffered grievous injuries. F.I.R. is placed on record as Ext. A-1 which is lodged on 18.03.2017 at about 07:15 pm. Report was lodged within less than two hours of the accident in which it is mentioned that when he was returning to his home on motorcycle and reached near Bhadra Chowk, offending vehicle driving rashly and negligently dashed claimant due to which he fell down along with motorcycle on road.

From the aforementioned pleadings and the facts of accident as mentioned in F.I.R., Ext. A-1, it is apparent that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.

Claimant is examined as AW-1. In his evidence-in-chief, he stated that while he was returning from village Korbi to his native village Bhadra, reached near Bhadra Chowk, stopped his motorcycle and waiting for his brother who went

5 / 7

to purchase some articles from the shop, at that relevant time offending vehicle came and dashed him. AW-2, Laldas, who is Kotwar of other village, in his statement also stated that the offending vehicle dashed the claimant/ appellant. He also stated that after causing accident, driver of offending vehicle ran away along with his vehicle. Bundlal is examined as AW-3, who is father of claimant, he also stated about the accident with the offending vehicle. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he is not the eyewitness to the accident.

Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not enter into witness box to prove the pleadings made in reply to the claim application that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of claimant. After filing of reply, they were proceeded ex parte .

In the order-sheet of the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal dated 14.10.2019, it is recorded that non-applicants did not want to examine any witness(es). From the aforementioned proceedings recorded by the Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3, driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle, have not entered into witness box to prove the stand taken by them in reply.

It is not in dispute that after accident, F.I.R. was lodged against driver of offending vehicle, after completion of investigation final report has also submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction for alleged offence under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC against non-applicant No.1/ driver of offending vehicle, from which it is apparent that police after completion of investigation found that non-applicant No. 1 while driving offending vehicle rashly and negligently caused accident in which claimant suffered injuries.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 has affirmed that police records ie. F.I.R. / charge-sheet, collected during investigation may be looked into; filing

6 / 7

of charge-sheet prima facie points to complicity in negligent/rash driving and is relevant evidence for the Tribunal.

Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. , (2025 INSC 600) held that F.I.R. and charge-sheet can suffice to establish rash and negligent driving in appropriate cases; eyewitnesses “will not be available in all cases.”

So far as the observation made by the Claims Tribunal in para-11 of the impugned award that smell of alcohol was coming out from the mouth of claimant from which it is reflecting that deceased was under intoxicated condition is concerned, provision under Section 185 of the Act of 1988 deals with -driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. Section 185(a) provides that whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or in any other test including a laboratory test, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine [of ten thousand rupees], or with both.

In the case at hand, there is no material/ evidence to suggest that in examination of blood of claimant had found trace of alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. In absence of such report, driver cannot be held guilty of driving the vehicle by a drunken person as provided under Section 185 of the Act of 1988.

Other consideration of the Claims Tribunal that the fact as narrated in the F.I.R. is a different version of the fact as narrated by claimant is concerned, there may be some contradiction in the F.I.R. or the oral statement but however in both the evidence ie., documentary and oral, available on record, one fact remains the same ie., involvement of offending vehicle in causing accident to claimant.

7 / 7

In the aforementioned facts of the case and also in absence of any evidence brought on by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1, which is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside.

As the Claims Tribunal has not assessed compensation and therefore I find it appropriate to remit back the case to the learned Claims Tribunal for computation of amount of compensation for which claimant would be entitled, upon appreciation of evidence available on record after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 13th October 2025.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid discussion.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

pwn

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 06.11.2019 in Claim Case No. 161/2017 whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claimant's application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that the claimant failed to prove permanent disability arising out of rash and negligent driving, and dismissed the claim application.¶1
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh · 06.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Accident of 18.03.2017 at about 05:30 pm near Bhadra Chowk: pickup vehicle bearing number CG11 AC 6155, driven by non-applicant No. 1, hit the claimant causing grievous injuries to several parts of his body.¶2
Prior proceeding
Application under Section 166 filed seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-; claimant pleaded he was a healthy 37-year-old working as conductor with Adarsh Bus Service earning Rs. 16,000 per month.¶3
Prior proceeding
Driver and owner (non-applicants 1 and 2) replied denying the pleaded facts, alleging the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself/driver of motorcycle CG16 B 6490; driver possessed valid licence and vehicle was insured.¶4
Prior proceeding
Insurance Company (non-applicant 3) replied denying liability, pleading breach of policy conditions and that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence; non-joinder of owner and insurer of the claimant's motorcycle was also pleaded.¶5
Prior proceeding
Claims Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove permanent disability resulting from grievous injuries received in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; breach of policy conditions not proved; dismissed the claim application.¶6
Prior proceeding
After filing replies, non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte; by order-sheet dated 14.10.2019 the Tribunal recorded that the non-applicants did not want to examine any witnesses; none of non-applicants 1, 2 and 3 entered the witness box.¶15