Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:17524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 62 of 2019 1 - Smt. Lalita Bai Janghel W/o Late Ramchand Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Saraswati Janghel D/o Late Ramchand Aged About 14 Years
Legal Reasoning
(Minor), Represented Through Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Janghel, R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Chameli Janghel D/o Late Ramchand Aged About 12 Years (Minor), Represented Through Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Janghel, R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lokeshwar Janghel S/o Late Ramchand Aged About 7 Years (Minor), Represented Through Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Janghel, R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Janak Janghel S/o Late Brijlal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Ku. Priyanka Janghel D/o Late Ramchand Aged About 3 Years (Minor), Represented Through Mother Smt. Lalita Bai Janghel, R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Deshna Bai W/o Janak Janghel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Kotra, Post - Udaypur, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). ... Appellants versus 1 - Sukhvinder Singh S/o Karnail Singh C/o J.R.C. Transport, Lalbag, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Truck No. CG-08-B-1162), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. A. L. Singraul, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent no.2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 16/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 31.07.2018 3 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 35/2014 whereby the claim application filed by the appellants has been rejected. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, on 25.09.2013, the deceased Ramchand Verma was going to Khairagarh on his motorcycle and when reached near Chhuikhadan Main Road, he dashed against the parked Truck bearing Registration No.C.G. 08/B-1162, which was wrongly parked on the road by respondent no.1 without any indication or indicator light and as a result of the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The claimants have filed a claim application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a total compensation of Rs.41 lakhs on various heads on account of death of deceased. 3. After evaluating the facts and evidence on record, the learned claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that the deceased died on account of his own act of rash and negligent driving and respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the offending truck was wrongly parked in the middle of the road by respondent no.1 without their being any indication or indicator light or without taking any security measures thereby the deceased met with accident in which he died on the spot. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased died on account of his own act of rash and negligent driving and without considering the factual aspects the claim sought by the appellants was dismissed. He 4 prays that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, proper compensation may be granted to the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supports the award and submits that on proper appreciation of facts and evidence the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim which does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of Lalita (A.W.1) wife of deceased and documents placed on record found that the negligence on the part of the truck driver has not been proved and it was because of rash and negligent driving of the deceased his motorcycle hit the parked truck from behind. 8 The Tribunal discussed the evidence of A.W.1 Lalita, which would go to show that she has admitted in her cross examination that her husband late Ramchandra Verma himself was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and due to which he hit the truck parked on the road side from behind thereby the accident took place. She has also admitted that on the date of accident the truck in question was parked on the road side. She has further admitted in para 6 that neither she was present at the time of accident nor was present at the accident spot. So, she does not know whether the vehicle in question was parked without any security or without glowing the indicator. Thus this witness herself has admitted that the accident happened due to negligent driving by her husband which resulted in his death and she 5 has clearly deposed that she does not know whether there was an indication or signal regarding the parking of the truck or not. 9. Further on perusal of the FIR (Ex.P-1) it is evident that on 25.09.2013 the deceased Ramchand Verma while driving his motor cycle CG 08 NC 1044 rashly and negligently, collided with the Truck No.C.G 08 V/1162 which was parked on the road side in front of Sai Mandir and crashed into the rear portion of the truck, due to which, he died on the spot. Ex.P-1 further stood firm by other documents i.e., map Panchnama (Ex.P-2) and information of premature death (Ex.P- 4). Thus it is clear from the documents placed on record and the statement of A.W.1 that the death of the deceased had occurred due to his own negligent driving of the motorcycle. 10. Now coming to the contention that respondent no.1 driver parked the truck without there being any indicator light or without taking any precautions, it appears that there is no eye witness at the accident spot, who can say that there was no indication or signal at the accident spot. When the truck was parked at the foot of the road, as stated by A.W.1 Lalita, there is a wide road where two trucks can easily pass through. Thus the Tribunal has rightly held that the negligence of respondent no.1 has not been proved. Even otherwise, in such a case, one is not found as responsible, but the FIR has been registered against the deceased only, in which, no one else is involved, therefore, the case was closed and again a report was filed against him after one year. 11. In view of the above, discussion this Court does not find any 6 infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal warranting
Decision
interference in the award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 12. Records of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of judgment. Rao Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge