Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.08.28 13:21:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:42923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 130 of 2021 1 - Pankaj Baxi S/o Late Shri Mahendra Baxi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 44 Bajrang Chouck Kournig Bhata, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Indica Vista Car No. C.G. 08 R 6406), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharat Bhushan Baxi S/o Bhupendra Kumar Baxi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Kourin Bhata Ward No. 44 Rajnandgaon Police Station Basantpur, Rajnanagaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Indica Vista Car No. C.G. 08 R 6406), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Rahul Sharma, S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years R/o Munshi Ismail Ward Bhatapara Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Rajnandgaon, Regional Office Pandri (Near L.I.C. Office) Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : : Shri Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara in Claim Case No.H-03 of 2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,200 in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 26.5.2016 at about 3 p.m. when the claimant was going on his motorcycle to his house for lunch, on the way, one Indica Car standing on the road bearing registration No.CG 08 R 6406 was suddenly driven by its driver and turned towards the right side due to which the motorcycle being driven by the claimant dashed with the car and the claimant suffered grievous injuries over his person. The incident was reported to concerned police station based upon which a crime was registered against non-applicant No.1 alleged driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant thereafter filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.10,15,000 against the non-applicant No.1 driver and non-applicant No.2 owner of the offending vehicle on the grounds mentioned therein. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 have pleaded that the car at the time of accident was 3 stationary on the side of the road and the injured driver of the motorcycle firstly hit the stone lying on the road and thereafter fell down. After falling from the motorcycle, the claimant came under the wheels of the car. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was sitting on the back seat and operating his laptop. Driver of the offending vehicle Satpal Jharia after parking of the vehicle went to answer the call of nature. However, he was not impleaded as a party/non- applicant. Similar is the pleading of non-applicant No.2 owner of the offending vehicle. Non-applicant No.3 insurance company submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as such there was breach of policy conditions. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties held that the claimant suffered motor accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the car by non- applicant No.1, breach of policy conditions, on account of non-applicant No.1 not possessing a valid and effective driving licence was found to be proved. The learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability and fastened liability upon non-applicants No.1 and 2 to satisfy the award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/owner and driver of the 4 offending car would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence properly. Non- applicants No.1 and 2 in their reply have very categorically pleaded that at the time of accident one Satpal Jharia was driving the vehicle, however, he was not made a party/non- applicant. Satpal Jharia entered into the witness box and categorically made a statement that on the date of accident he was driver of the offending car engaged by non-applicant No.2. But, even then, discarding the evidence of non-applicant No.2, the witness stated that it is non-applicant No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company would oppose the above submission and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The said finding is based on appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and hence it does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 7. Perusal of the record of the claim case would show that the claimant in the claim application has specifically pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle. He has also filed copies of the documents 5 prepared by police during the course of investigation including the final report as Ex.A2 to A20. In the copy of the charge- sheet, statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ajay Pal, Rahul Sharma (the claimant) are available. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against non-applicant No.1 Bharat Bhushan Baxi showing him to be the driver of the offending vehicle. In evidence before the Claims Tribunal, Bharat Bhushan Baxi was examined as DW2. In paragraph 6 of his evidence, he admitted that the criminal case was registered against him and the criminal case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara. He further admitted that against the registration of the case against him, he has not made any complaint to superior authority, however, he clarified that he has not having any knowledge about the same. Upon putting question to him on Ex.A19 available on record, he admitted that the car was handed over to him by his uncle for driving, however, he did not drive the car, but, engaged driver Satpal Jharia. Pankaj Baxi, owner of the offending car is examined as DW1. In his evidence, he stated that Satpal Jharia was the driver engaged by him. He has not disputed the execution of Ex.A19, i.e., the consent letter executed under his signature and he has given only permission to non-applicant No.1 to take his vehicle. The evidence of DW1 and DW2, i.e., the owner of the vehicle and the alleged driver of the vehicle is contradictory to each other with respect to engagement of the driver and use of the vehicle. 6 8. Upon considering the entirety of the facts of the case as also the evidence brought on record, in particular, the registration of the criminal case against non-applicant No.1, he had not made any complaint or submitted any application before higher police authorities about the illegal act of registration of criminal case against him instead of Satpal Jharia, driver of the offending vehicle, the evidence before the Claims Tribunal or the issue of engagement of the driver and the use of the vehicle as mentioned in Ex.A19, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in recording the finding that on the date of accident it was non-applicant No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle. The said finding is afÏrmed. It is not the case of the appellants that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence. The insurance company is exonerated because non-applicant No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, which also does not call for any interference. 9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Gopal Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE