<9 H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAT'USGARH : BILASPUR (DlVl$ION BENCH) CORAM : Hon’bte Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. M.A. No. 839 OF 2005 1) APPELLANTINON- United lndia insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, One, Gangotri, Fifth Floor, T.T.Nagar, Bhopal, Distt. Bhopal, (M.P.) APPLICANT N03 Ver$us RESPONDENTS 1) Navin Jaiswal. S/o; Mulchand Jaiswal, Aged about 36 years. resident of Tikrapara. Takhatpur, P.$. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) QLAIMANT 2) Ajay Sharma, S/o. Bhuneshwar Sharma. resident of Kochdih, P.S. Koch, Disk. Gaya, (Bihar), present resident of Sharab’ Bhatti, Thakatpur, P.S.Thakatpur Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) , 3) M/s. Harbansh Singh and Sons, Resident of Vaishaii Nagar, Bhopal, Tahsil & District Bhopal (M.P.)' NON—APPLICANT No.1 8 2 4) National insurance Company Ltd.. Resident of B-1, Taha Complex, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)r NON‘APPLICANT NOA Present: Mr. H.B.Agrawal. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawai, ieamed counsel for the appeiiant. L O (Passed on 12 of December 2006) g ‘ The foiiowin Order of the Court was passed by SR. Nayak, CJ: The first respondent herein sustained grievous injuries in an accident occurred on 27.07.2003 invoiving the motor vehicie owned by the second respondent and insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, the frrst respondent flied a claim petition under $ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The appeliant/insurance Company conmd the ciaim of the first respondent interalia contending that the first respondent has aiso contributed negiigence in causing the accident. Although. such a plea was taken by the appellant/Insurance Company in the written statement tiled by it, admittedly, no evidence was led by the appellantllnsurance Company to prove the above plea. it is needless to state that it is for the person who raises a plea to prove that plea by substantive legal evidence. The plea iSelf is not an evidence. Therefore, the MACT attributing contributory negligence on the part of the first respondent/claimant in causing the accident could not arise. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that inference of contributory negligence on the part of first respondent/claimant could be made on the basis of the established facts. Looking from any angle, we do not nnd any merit in the above contention of the Insurance Company. No omer point was urged before us to assail the correctness of the impugned award. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shalt be no order as to costs. " } Sd/- ’: ' sw— é Sab‘sh K. Agnthom g Chief Jusu‘ce’ . \ \ 1V Judge ' . s-AWW