Dismissed¶41

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Soshan Lakra

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026MAC/591/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contributory negligence; head-on collision between two motorcycles; cross FIR; no issue framed by Tribunal; burden of pleading and proving contributory negligence on insurer; absence of cogent/direct/corroborative evidence; Meera Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation 2014 (4) SCC 511 relied on; Section 166 and Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act; Motor Vehicles Rules; pay and recover; MACT Jashpur Claim Case No.42 of 2019; ICICI Lombard General Insurance; MAC No. 591 of 2021; appeal dismissed; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the interim order granted earlier was vacated. ¶41

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the interim order granted earlier was vacated.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in not framing a specific issue with regard to contributory negligence despite head-on collusion between the two motorcycles and cross FIRs. +2 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No issue was framed by the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence, and the Insurance Company failed to plead and prove contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle.

¶32

Key takeaways

The reply filed by the Insurance Company contained no plea whatsoever ('no whisper') with regard to contributory negligence; the plea was raised for the first time before this Court.ratio¶29
In absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.ratio¶32
Applying the law laid down in Meera Devi (supra) to the facts of the case, there is no good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAC appeal (MAC No. 591 of 2021) by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated 18.1.2021 in Claim Case No.42 of 2019 of the MACT, Jashpur, which granted Rs.13,85,480/- with interest @6% per annum for the death of Pramod Lakra in a collision between two motorcycles on 15.4.2019. The appellant contended that, given the head-on collusion and cross FIRs, the Tribunal ought to have framed a specific issue on contributory negligence. The Court held that no such issue was framed; the insurer failed to plead (no whisper of contributory negligence in its reply) and failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle; and, in absence of direct or corroborative evidence, it cannot be presumed that both vehicles were driven rashly and negligently. Relying on Meera Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, 2014 (4) SCC 511, the Court found no ground to interfere with the award. Appeal dismissed; interim order earlier granted vacated.

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:971

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 591 of 2021

¶7

1 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Permanent Office Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Rd, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Soshan Lakra S/o Silbester Lakra Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Tehsil Telitoli, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Silbester Lakra S/o Late Barnabas Lakra Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Tehsil Telitoli, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Smt. Demetiriya W/o Silbester Lakra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kersai, Sukbasu Toli, Tehsil Farsabahar And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Nandkumar Pradhan S/o Shri Bhakharnath Pradhan R/o Village Makribandha, Tahsil Duldula, And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (C.G. 14 Mh 0547), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Sanjeevan Ekka S/o Late Silbester Ekka R/o Village Kersai, Tehsil Farsabahar And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (C.G. 14 Ma 7537)., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant/ Insurance	: Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate
Company	holdingthe brief of Shri Sourabh

¶17

¶18

	Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3	: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For Respondents No.4 & 5	: None.

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Judgment On Board

¶21

07-01-2026

¶22

1) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No.42 of 2019 dated 18.1.2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.13,85,480/- alongwith interest @6% per annum on account of death of Pramod Lakra.

¶23

2) The facts, in brief, are that on 15.4.2019, deceased Pramod Lakra alongwith Edwin and Sanjeevan Ekka were going to village Kesarai and at the same time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.14 MH 0547 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resultantly, the deceased sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, he died. The claimants, who are brother and parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company pleaded that three persons were traveling on a motorcycle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules; that the riders of both the motorcycles did not have valid driving licenses;

¶24

¶25

and both the motorcycles were not insured. Learned Tribunal framed the issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed.

¶26

3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that as there was head on collusion and cross FIRs were lodged, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have framed a specific issue with regard to contributory negligence. He would contend that the Legal Assistant of the Insurance Company, namely, Rahul Choudhary was examined to prove the factum of the contributory negligence. He would pray to allow this appeal.

¶27

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that neither Insurance Company nor the driver and owner of the offending vehicle could prove the existence of contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle. He would further contend that, as no plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken by the Insurance Company in its reply to the claim petition, therefore, no issue was framed, and for the first time such a plea is being raised before this Court. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

6) A perusal of the reply filed by the Insurance Company would show that there is no whisper with regard to contributory negligence. In evidence, Rahul Choudhary (NAW-1) has categorically stated that

¶30

¶31

3-3 persons where traveling on each of the motorcycle and the riders did not have a valid driving licenses. Learned Tribunal framed issues with regard to breach of conditions of Insurance Policy and decided the same in favour of the Insurance Company, fastening the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle with a stipulation of pay and recover.

¶32

7) Admittedly, there was a collision between two motorcycles. No issue was framed by the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence. The Insurance Company failed to plead and prove contributory negligence on the part of either vehicle. It is well-settled principle of law that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The Insurance Company as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle failed to lead evidence in this regard.

¶33

8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and

¶34

Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation

¶35

and Others¹ while dealing with the similar issue in para 10 held as under :-

¶36

“10. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of the common law cannot be applied in the present case. We

¶37

1 . 2014 (4) SCC 511

¶38

¶39

are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶40

9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra) held that in absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the doctrine of common law cannot be applied.

¶41

10) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶42

11) The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶44

Nimmi

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Soshan Lakra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Soshan Lakra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Chawla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harish Chandra Nishad Vs Shri Tikeshwar

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bimla Sahu

Awadh Kishore Vs Harjeet Singh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Anita Netam

Smt.Anjana Khakha Vs Saihin Xalxo (Died and Deleted) Through LRs.