Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹19 Lakh Award To Widow, Two Children And Mother, Rejects Driver’s Tractor Account Made 10 Months Later

In brief

The question

Whether the insurer established that the insured motorcycle was not involved in the accident and that the accident was instead caused by a tractor-trolley

The court held

The High Court held that the insurer’s appeal lacked merit and that the Tribunal’s award was consistent with the oral and documentary evidence.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and directed that the Tribunal’s record be returned promptly for necessary action.

01Facts

Manoj Kumar Jagat died from injuries sustained in a road accident on 16 November 2021.

¶ 2–4

His wife, two minor children and mother sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶ 2–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, found that the motorcycle driven by Lilavan Singh was involved and that his rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

¶ 2–4

It awarded the claimants ₹19,01,541 with interest.

¶ 2–4

The insurer appealed, contending that its insured motorcycle was not involved and that the accident was caused by a tractor-trolley.

¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the insurer established that the insured motorcycle was not involved in the accident and that the accident was instead caused by a tractor-trolley

¶ 4, 6–9

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving, and its resulting award, warranted appellate interference

¶ 6–9

03Law Applied

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer’s appeal was under Section 173 of that Act.

¶ 1, 3

The Court assessed the evidence on the record, including the eyewitness testimony, the contemporaneous FIR and the police investigation documents, against the driver’s later account.

¶ 6–9

No judicial precedents or separate legal test were cited; the Court’s decision turned on whether the evidence supported the Tribunal’s factual findings.

¶ 6–9

04Reasoning

The Court found that the claimant-side witness’s account was supported by the police documents and charge-sheet, and that the driver’s contrary defence was not substantiated in cross-examination.

¶ 6

The driver’s complaint to the Superintendent of Police alleging involvement of a tractor-trolley was made about ten months after the accident; it did not mention the tractor-trolley, and the driver offered no explanation for the delay.

¶ 7–8

The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s contention that the motorcycle was not involved and found no basis to disbelieve the claimant-side evidence or the police record.

¶ 8–9