PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA • National Insurance Company Limited v. 1. Omkar Prasad Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur Aged About 64 Years 2. Rekha
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:41106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 274 of 2024 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA • National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant/ non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Omkar Prasad Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur Aged About 64 Years 2. Rekha Thakur W/o Omkar Prasad Thakur Aged About 54 Years Both are R/o Ward No. 16, Ramkund, Near Maharastra Bhawan, Raipur, Thana Azad Chowk, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) …….Claimants 3. Abdul Nazim Khan S/o Abdul Aziz Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 950, Megma Villa Gali, Behind Rajkumar College, Karbalapara, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Thana Sarswatinagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Driver)…..non-applicant No. 1. 4. Praveen Yadav S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Jhada Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, Thana Tikarapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner)…..non-applicant No. 2. ---Respondents ___________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
No. 1 and therefore prima facie it is apparent that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending car by non-applicant No. 1, hence, there is no merit in this appeal, it be dismissed. 4 / 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Sole ground raised by learned counsel for appellant in this appeal is that, the deceased Jyotiraditya Thakur met with an accident due to his own negligence, claimants in their claim application have pleaded that deceased aged about 19 years, while riding on motorcycle offending car driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No. 1 dashed the motorcycle of deceased from its rear side due to which deceased hit his motorcycle with a divider on road. In the claim application, it is mentioned that deceased on the date of accident was working in a factory and earning Rs. 7,500 per month. 11. Claimants in support of his claim application have also filed documents of criminal case including F.I.R. and final report. F.I.R. was lodged by Sub- Inspector of the concerned police station in which there is mention that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by deceased on which Ishita Matiyara and Bhumika Yadav were also sitting as pillion. Police after completion of investigation submitted final report filed as Ext. P-1 in which it is mentioned that motorcycle driven by deceased was dashed by offending car driven by non-applicant No. 1. Owner of offending car has admitted that he is aware about the accident caused by non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 was arrested. 12. Claimants in their support have examined Omkar Prasad Thakur as AW-1 who is father of deceased. He made statement according to the pleadings made in the application. He admitted that age of his deceased son is mentioned as 16 years in post-mortem report and there is no other admissible document to prove the age. 13. Bhumika Yadav, one of the pillion riders of the motorcycle is examined as AW-2. In her statement she stated that when she along with deceased 5 / 5 was travelling on motorcycle, it was hit by offending car from its behind due to which motorcycle dashed with the divider and accident happened. 14. Rajendra Kumar Kurrey, Assistant Sub-Inspector who registered the report is also examined before the Claims Tribunal and in his evidence in cross- examination he admitted that the informer Bajrang Singh Thakur was not present on spot, after receiving information Bajrang Singh Thakur lodged a complaint in the concerned police station. 15. From the aforementioned evidence available on record of Asst. Sub- Inspector, it is apparent that the informer in F.I.R. was not an eye witness to the accident as he was not present on spot as stated by the Investigating Officer of Crime Number 108/19. Pillion rider who was riding on motorcycle at the time of accident has made categorical statement about the accident of motorcycle driven by deceased in which she was one of the occupant, dashed by the offending car. 16. In the aforementioned evidence available in record, it is ample clear that the accident was not a result of self-negligence of the deceased driver of the motorcycle but the offending car (Safari car) is instrumental which dashed the motorcycle driven by deceased. 17. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of facts and evidence available on record has not committed any error in recording a finding that the accident was a result of rash driving of offending car by non-applicant No. 1. The said finding cannot be said to be erroneous. 18. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 14/08/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 29.11.2023 passed by Learned Twelfth Additional Motor 2 / 5 Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 826/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 13,11,360/- as compensation, fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 17.04.2019 at about 2:00 p.m., near the road leading to DD Nagar, non-applicant No. 1, while driving Safari car No. CG 04 KW 8877 (hereinafter referred to as “offending car”) rashly and negligently, hit motorcycle No. CG 04 KU 1108, ridden by Jyotiraditya Thakur, due to which he collide with the divider and sustain fatal injuries. The accident was reported on 04.06.2019 at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), whereupon an FIR was registered under Section 304-A IPC, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against non-applicant No. 1 driver of offending car under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2-claimants who are parents of deceased Jyotiraditya Thakur filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 15,82,000 pleading therein that the deceased on the date of accident was aged about 19 years, he was working in a factory and earning ₹ 7,500 per month. 4. Respondents No. 3 & 4/ Non-applicant No. 1 & 2- driver and owner of the offending car proceeded ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3- Insurance company submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending car was being plied in breach of policy conditions, non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence and valid insurance policy. Deceased on the 3 / 5 date of accident was aged about 16 years, was riding his motorcycle with two other pillion riders, without having valid and effective driving licence, and the accident caused due to negligence of deceased. 6. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties had allowed the application in part, holding that deceased Jyotiraditya Thakur died in a motor accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending car by non- applicant No. 1. Breach of policy conditions was not found to be proved, computed the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 13,11,360. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering that the deceased met with an accident while riding motorcycle as he dashed with divider on road. He contended that as the deceased was aged about 16 years, not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of his own. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering this fact and has erroneously recorded a finding that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending car by non-applicant No. 1. 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2- claimants would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that after accident it was reported to concerned police station, during course of investigation police recorded memorandum statement of non-applicant No. 1-driver in which he admitted his guilt. After completion of investigation, final report/ charge-sheet was filed against non-applicant