The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterates that unless the insurer produces concrete evidence of contributory negligence, the liability to pay compensation cannot be reduced; existing precedent on evidentiary burden affirmed — binding precedent for Motor Accident Claims in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/741/2022 of BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SON SINGH |
| CNR | CGHC010205882022 |
| Date of Registration | 27-06-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (SB) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the approach requiring evidence for allegation of contributory negligence |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims / Tort / Insurance |
| Questions of Law | Whether a mere plea of contributory negligence, without evidence, is sufficient to reduce compensation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The insurer must adduce evidence to support a plea of contributory negligence; absent such evidence, compensation cannot be reduced. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The insurer claimed contributory negligence by the deceased motorcyclist but produced no evidence. An eyewitness attributed sole negligence to the opposing driver, and both Tribunal and High Court found no merit in the insurer’s plea. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh under the High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering the evidentiary burden in contributory negligence claims |
| Follows | Affirms existing law that burden rests on the party alleging contributory negligence |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that insurance companies cannot seek apportionment of fault without leading evidence on contributory negligence.
- Eyewitness testimony (uncontradicted) attributing sole negligence to an offending party is sufficient for awarding entire compensation.
- Pleading contributory negligence without supporting evidence will not suffice to reduce compensation liability.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the testimony of the eyewitness (A.W.-2), who stated that the deceased was not at fault and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite party.
- Cross-examination did not shake the eyewitness’s version, maintaining that deceased was not contributorily negligent.
- The appellant/insurer, despite raising a plea of contributory negligence, failed to bring on record any evidence to establish that the deceased contributed to the accident.
- The court concluded that without any evidence, the mere assertion of contributory negligence cannot support reduction of compensation.
- Found no merit in interfering with the award and dismissed the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – Insurance Company):
- There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while driving his motorcycle.
- Accordingly, half of the compensation should have been deducted towards contributory negligence.
Respondents No. 4 & 5:
- Supported the impugned award.
- Asserted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference.
Factual Background
The insurance company appealed against an award of compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased motorcyclist. The insurer claimed the deceased was partly at fault for the accident and sought a reduction in the compensation. An eyewitness to the accident, riding pillion, stated that the offending driver was solely responsible for the accident, and this testimony was not contradicted or weakened. No evidence was produced to substantiate the insurer’s claim of contributory negligence.
Statutory Analysis
- The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The court addressed the law relating to contributory negligence in motor accident claims and highlighted the importance of adducing evidence to support such a plea.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing legal principles regarding evidentiary requirements for contributory negligence in motor accident claims.