The court ruled that contributory negligence could not be established without evidence, affirming that the deceased was not at fault, and upheld the claim for full compensation.

1. This order shall govern disposal of above two appeals, as they arise out of one and the same accident, claim case and award and common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The appeals were heard analogously and being decided by this common order.

2. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 11.4.2013 passed by First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 210 of 2010, Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 781 of 2013 has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the liability fastened upon it, whereas Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 684 of 2013 has been filed by the claimants challenging the finding of contributory negligence as well as seeking enhancement of the amount awarded under the impugned award.

3. The facts in nutshell, necessary for adjudication of the appeals, are as under.
3.1. In a motor accident occurred on 10.11.2009, Utkarsh Verma lost his life. On the fateful day, he was driving his car bearing registration No. CG 04 - H 0708 on Raipur - Bilaspur National Highway 200. His mother, late Anupama Verma, was also sitting in the car. On the way, near a petrol pump before Simga (Bilaspur), a goods truck bearing registration No. CG 10 - A 9844, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent driver Dileshwar Kenwat, dashed the car. As a result of the accident, Utkarsh Verma and his mother sustained injuries and died instantaneously. The truck was owned by the respondent Nileshwar Soni and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. A report of the accident was lodged in Police Station Simga, District Raipur, where an offence under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent driver and a charge - sheet was filed against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, for the said offence, which is pending consideration before the jurisdictional criminal court.
3.2. Neelima Verma and Bhuma Verma, the widow and the minor daughter of the deceased Utkarsh Verma, claimed compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act', 1988) stating, inter alia, that on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the respondent driver, the accident took place in which Utkarsh Verma sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The offending truck was owned by respondent Nileshwar Soni and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd: It was further pleaded that the deceased was one of the renowned legal practitioners in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and he had been a Deputy Government Advocate for a fairly long period and they were fully dependent upon him. They are entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,92,50,000 from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck, jointly and severally.
3.3. The owner and driver of the offending truck filed a joint written statement before the Claims Tribunal and pleaded that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck on the date of accident and the truck was duly insured with the insurance company, therefore, liability of indemnification, if any, was to be fastened upon the insurance company.
3.4. The insurance company filed a separate written statement and opposed the claim petition stating, inter alia, that deceased Utkarsh Verma was contributory negligent in driving the car and the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the truck and, thus, the insurance company disowned liability to indemnify.
3.5. During the course of trial, claimants, in support of their case, examined five witnesses and exhibited documents, Exhs. P1 to P24. The driver and owner of the offending truck neither filed any document nor adduced any evidence before the Claims Tribunal to support their case. The insurance company examined the