The Chhattisgarh High Court, through a single-judge decision, clarified that contributory negligence must be strictly proved by the party alleging it, and cannot be presumed solely on the basis of police records or uncorroborated pleas—upholding established law and serving as binding precedent for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/78/2023 of SMT. PRABHA CHANDRAKAR Vs M/S SATGURU AUTO MOBILES |
| CNR | CGHC010013562023 |
| Date of Registration | 11-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation Law (Tort Law / Civil law under the Motor Vehicles Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a finding of contributory negligence against a deceased victim can be sustained where there is no cogent evidence supporting the plea? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a plea of contributory negligence must be established by concrete and reliable evidence. Police documentation or a plea in the written statement is insufficient unless corroborated by independent testimony or credible eyewitness evidence. In the instant case, the sole eyewitness categorically refuted any negligence by the deceased, and the insurance company failed to bring substantive evidence to establish contributory negligence. Therefore, deduction of compensation on this ground was unjustified. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellants/claimants challenged an award reducing compensation by 50% on the ground of alleged contributory negligence by the deceased. The insurer based its argument on police records and closing of a criminal case against the deceased after his death. However, the only eyewitness examined confirmed that the deceased’s vehicle was stationary during the incident, and denied any negligent driving by the deceased. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts/Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other states and the Supreme Court, especially on standards of proof for contributory negligence in MAC cases |
| Follows | Established principles requiring strict proof for allegations of contributory negligence (no specific earlier case cited) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that contributory negligence must be proven with cogent evidence—mere allegations or uncorroborated references in police documents are insufficient.
- Clear preference is given to the testimony of credible eyewitnesses over documentary hearsay or assertions in pleadings.
- Lawyers should ensure actual evidentiary basis when pleading contributory negligence in motor accident claims.
- Deduction of compensation on the ground of contributory negligence is not justified without clear, reliable proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court analyzed whether the insurance company had adequately established contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
- The plea was set out in the written statement and referenced in police documents; however, the only eyewitness, present as a pillion rider, consistently testified that the deceased was stationary and not careless or negligent.
- The Law Officer for the insurance company did not provide independent or primary evidence, but only referred to the police record and the closure of the criminal case posthumously.
- The court held that the standard for attributing contributory negligence is strict and cannot be satisfied by uncorroborated allegations, especially where direct eyewitness evidence is available.
- Since the insurance company failed to discharge its burden of proof, the finding of contributory negligence and the consequent deduction in compensation was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants/Claimants):
- Only one witness (Law Officer) was examined for the insurer, who did not specifically state that the deceased was negligent.
- The eyewitness, Jitendra Das Manikpuri, confirmed that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving by the other motorcycle and the deceased’s vehicle was stationary.
- Contributory negligence was therefore not proved and reduction of compensation was erroneous.
Respondent (Insurance Company):
- The finding on contributory negligence was correct, based on deposited police documents and written statement.
- Supported the Claims Tribunal’s order and opposed interference.
Factual Background
The claimants sought compensation for the death of Tikeshwar Chandrakar in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim only in part, deducting half the compensation due to alleged contributory negligence by the deceased, largely on the basis of police documentation and pleadings. The only eyewitness, who was riding pillion, testified that the deceased’s vehicle was stationary and attributed the accident solely to the rash driving of the other vehicle.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment was rendered in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court scrutinized the evidentiary requirements for establishing contributory negligence within the context of motor accident compensation claims under the Act, emphasizing that statutory compensation cannot be reduced absent reliable, affirmative proof of joint negligence.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedent, guideline, or change to the evidentiary standard or burden of proof was instituted; the ruling applies established principles regarding proof of contributory negligence.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Reaffirms and applies established law on the strict requirement of proof for contributory negligence in motor accident claims.