Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Duver Pati Singh – Respondent
MAC No. 41 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. T.K. Tiwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Mr. A.N. Pandey, Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra
The admissibility of FIR as evidence in civil cases must defer to evidence presented before the Tribunal, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging invalidity of license.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 and Section 163-A - Challenge to compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal in a motor accident case - Insurance Company disputes validity of driving license - Claims Tribunal found that evidence presented did not establish breach of policy conditions leading to accident; the finding of the Tribunal was based on the evidence of parties submitted, supporting the claimant's eligibility for compensation. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 13)
(B) Evidence - Admissibility of FIR contents in civil proceedings - Court reaffirmed that evidence before Tribunal holds greater weight than contents of FIR. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Appeals - Grounds for challenging Tribunal’s awards must be substantiated. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Deceased met with an accident while driving tractor, leading to his death. Family claimed compensation. Tribunal awarded ₹5,00,000 based on evidence despite Insurance Company's claims of forged documents and ineligibility of deceased.
Findings of Court:
Insurance Company failed to prove allegations against the death of the insured; Tribunal's decision of compensation upheld.
Issues: Validity of the driving license presented by claimants; whether the insurance company breached policy conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The learned Claims Tribunal properly evaluated evidence; no substantial evidence presented by Insurance Company to disprove claimants’ proof of license or establish non-liability under policy.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident and claims for compensation. (Para 3) |
| 2. challenges to license validity by insurance company. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reliance on tribunal evidence over fir contents. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. finding of no breach of policy conditions. (Para 12) |
| 5. overall conclusion to dismiss the appeal. (Para 14) |
Order On Board
01/07/2025
1. Appellant-Insurance Company have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned order dated 18/09/2018 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 248/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.
2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on
17/07/2017, Anuplal, while driving the Tractor, bearing No. C.G. 15/ D.D.- 5248 on the instructions of the Non-Applicant No.2, was ploughing the agriculture field. While doing so, due to mechanical fault of the Tractor of failing of the steering, it met with an accident and turned turtle, Anuplal Singh came under the Tractor and suffered grievous injuries over his person and died on spot.
3. Claimants, who are widow, children and mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 163-A seeking compensation against the death of Anuplal stating therein that, he was working as a driver of the Tractor, earning Rs.3,300/- per month salary and claimed total sum of Rs.10,04,900/- as compensation. Non-applicant No.1-Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim application resisting pleadings made in the application under Section 163-A . It is specifically denied that the offending vehicle suffered mechanical failure. The deceased was not possessed with valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident and further that, the date of birth as mentioned in the Educational testimonials as 03/12/1991 and, therefore, on the date of issuance of license stated to be issued from RTO, Bhind, age of the deceased was only 11 years. Non-applicant No.2 also submitted reply to the claim application and it was pleaded that the compensation claimed is exaggerated, on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No.1- Insurance Company. The deceased was having valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties felt that the breach of policy condition of the Insurance Policy could not be proved, allowed the application in part and awarded sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
5. Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering that the copy of license produced before the Tribunal as Ex.P/9C in the name of deceased was forged and fabricated document. He contended that, different date of birth have been mentioned in the documents placed on record before the Claim Tribunal and in the Criminal Case. He also contended that the Appellant-Insurance Company has taken the specific defence with regard to the date of birth of the brother of the deceased as mentioned in the FIR to be of the year 1987 and deceased has been stated to be younger brother of the informant and, therefore, considering the contents of the FIR, the date on which the license is said to be issued, age of deceased cannot be more than 14 years. He also contended that the father of the deceased- Budhan Singh was examined before the Claims Tribunal as AW-2 in cross- examination, specific question is put to this witness about the date of birth or the age of the deceased, which has not been properly answered and no details have been stated by him, which shows that the said witnesses made
