Jila Ram Netam S/o Late Lachchhu Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jodatarai v. 1 - Mohan Sethiya S/o Late Ramchandra Sethiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Ghotpal
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:32897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 396 of 2019 Jila Ram Netam S/o Late Lachchhu Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jodatarai, Patelpara, P.S. Barsur, Tahsil Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Mohan Sethiya S/o Late Ramchandra Sethiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Ghotpal, Kalarpara, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle) 2 - Bharat Netam S/o Late Kunwar Singh Netam Aged About 44 Years R/o Main Road Geetam, Tahsil Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 3 - Sukuldhar Sethiya S/o Sukhdeo Aged About 45 Years R/o Ghotpal, Kalarpara, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Present Owner) 4 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served
Legal Reasoning
after completion of investigation have prima facie found that on the date of accident vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.3 and driven by non- applicant No.1. The claimants have further filed statement of Jilaram Netam/claimant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-9. In the said statement also, he specifically mentioned the name of non-applicant No.1 to be driver of the offending vehicle. Statement of Mayaram recorded under Section 161 of Cr.Pc. is also available in which he stated that earlier he was driving the offending vehicle owned by non-applicant No.3 however prior to date of accident he left driving the vehicle of non- applicant No.3. 15. The claimant- Jila Ram appeared as witnesses before the Claims Tribunal as AW1. In his evidence he stated that real name of Mayaram is Mohan Sethiya and he was driving the vehicle . AW2 Devaram in his statement -7- stated that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of offending Commander Jeep by its driver. Though in his cross-examination he stated that he was not aware as to who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, from his evidence, it cannot be concluded that non- applicant No.1 was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Insurance Company has examined A.B. Mate, Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jagdalpur Branch as NAW-4/1. He has proved the copy of policy and other documents obtained from RTO office to prove licence and other documents of vehicle. He is not the eyewitness to the accident or to prove the fact as to who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance company has further examined M.S. Kureshi NAW-4/2, the employee of the RTO. He also cannot be said to be the witness to prove the fact as to who was the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident. 16. True it is that while lodging of FIR by claimant, name of Mayaram is mentioned in the FIR to be driver of offending vehicle, police after completion of investigation based on statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses in the criminal case had submitted charge sheet against non-applicant No.1 Mohan Sethiya. Learned Claims Tribunal concluded that as statement of material witnesses who are the occupants of Jeep at the time of accident have not been called upon by claimant as witness, it makes the claim of the claimant suspicious and further that no eyewitness is examined to prove the fact that at the time of accident non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently causing accident resulting in death of Chaituram. 17. Said observation of learned Claims Tribunal in view of the evidence -8- available on record, in the opinion of this Court, is erroneous. Claims Tribunal cannot rely upon the contents of documents of criminal case unless it is proved in accordance with law. Merely making documents of police case as part of record of claim case, will not be sufficient to read its content as evidence. 18. Learned Claims Tribunal cannot expect from the claimant to get witnesses of criminal case to be examined in claim case. It is for the claimant to prove the claim case by examining the other witnesses available according to pleadings made in the claim application. Tribunal is required to decide the claim case based on documentary and oral evidence led by the respective parties in the claim case only, applying principle of preponderance of probabilities. 19. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer reported in 2005 (1) MPWN 91 while considering the evidentiary value of document of criminal case in proceedings before Claims Tribunal for deciding claim case observed that “in view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596, while deciding the evidentiary value of FIR, held as under: -9- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.” 21. For the foregoing discussions and decisions as referred above, finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim on the ground that claimant failed to prove that deceased died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. It is held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1. 22. Learned Claims Tribunal has decided the issue No.3 to 6 based on decision on issue No. 1 & 2. As the finding recorded by Tribunal on issue No.1 & 2 is set aside matter is remitted back to learned Claims Tribunal to consider and decide claim case afresh based on evidence available on record after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the claim -10- proceedings. 23. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 20 th August 2025 . Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen
Arguments
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate _________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.21 17:47:18 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 15/07/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1 which is an application for withdrawal of power filed by Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3. 2. As respondents No. 1 & 3 are represented by Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate, application is allowed and Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate is permitted to withdraw his power on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, case is heard finally. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant/claimant challenging the award dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (CG) in Claim Case No.15 of 2017 whereby claim application filed by the appellant/claimant has been dismissed. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) pleading therein that in the evening of 31.10.2016 when Maituram was going to Geedam with his nephew Manoj Vatti on his motorcycle no. CG 18/K/9064 to buy some goods, non-applicant No.1 driving Commander Jeep no. CG 17/D/0570 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle with the jeep forcefully, due to which Maituram fell down along with the motorcycle, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on his head, chest, brain and other parts of the body. He was taken to the Primary Health Center Geedam for treatment, where he died after some time. Manoj, who was -3- sitting behind, also suffered injuries in the accident and was sent to Jagdalpur for treatment. Deceased Maituram was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. The applicant claimed for total compensation of Rs. 8,73,000 (eight lakh seventy three thousand rupees) from non-applicants under various heads. 6. Non-applicants No.1 & 3 have jointly submitted a written reply to the claim application and specifically denied all the pleadings made in the application and further pleaded that at the time of the accident, driver (deceased) of the motorcycle CG 18/K/9064 did not collide with the Commander Jeep No. CG 17/D/0570, but while taking side, driver of motorcycle lost control, went towards ditch and fell down. At the time of the accident, driver/non-applicant No. 1 was driving the vehicle slowly and carefully. Non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle. Vehicle Commander Jeep CG 17/D/0570 was insured with non-applicant No.4 for the period from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017. Therefore, the liability to pay amount of compensation, if any, is upon non- applicant No.4 7. Non-applicant No. 2 in his written statement denying the pleading made in the claim application has specifically pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Maituram was driving motorcycle No. CG 18/K/9064 negligently and while taking the wrong side, motorcycle fell into the ditch due to which, Maituram got injured and died. At the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the vehicle slowly and carefully. The said vehicle was insured with the insurance company non-applicant No.4 on the date of the incident. Non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle, which was valid till 29.05.2029. -4- Therefore, non-applicant No.4 is liable to pay amount of compensation to claimant. 8. Non-applicant No.4/Insurance Company in its written statement specifically denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by one Mayaram Sinha, he was not having effective and valid driving licence and, hence, non-applicant No.1 was implanted as driver of offending vehicle. Non-applicant (vehicle owner) was using the offending vehicle to carry passengers on the date and time of accident. Offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions, as on the date and time of the accident, driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle, due to which non-applicant /insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, concluded that death of Maituram due to motor accidental injuries in an accident caused by Commander Jeep bearing No. CG17/D/0570 driven by non-applicant No.1 has not been found proved and further that principle of contributory negligence did not attract in the case, dismissed the entire claim application of the appellant/claimant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the entire claim application on wrong appreciation of evidence available in claim case. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal though has not dismissed the application on the ground that vehicle owned by non-applicant No.3 is not involved in the accident but on the ground that name of driver as mentioned in FIR and -5- claim application are two different names. Said ground taken by learned Claims Tribunal for rejecting the claim is not sustainable as documents available in the claim case particularly copy of charge sheet (Ex.P-8) mentions name of non-applicant No.1 Mohan Sethiya to be driver of the offending vehicle as also other documents i.e. statement of claimant No.1 and statement of Mayaram clearly mentions that at the time of accident non-applicant No.1 was driving the vehicle. 11.Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 however do not dispute the ownership of the vehicle with non-applicant No.3 and that on the date of accident vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1. However, he submits that as per pleading made in written statement deceased met with an accident of his own negligence as he fell along with motorcycle in a ditch on the side of road. He also contended that on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.4 and, therefore, liability if any would be upon non-applicant No.4. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence available on record justified in coming to the conclusion that person who was driving offending vehicle on the date of accident has not been impleaded as non- applicant in this case and non-applicant No.1 has been implanted with an ulterior motive. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal in para-14 of award has considered in detail about the implication of non-applicant No.1 subsequent to accident and showing him to be driver of the offending vehicle. Said finding cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the documentary and oral evidence available on record. -6- 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 14. Claimant in the claim application has arrayed non-applicant No.1 showing him to be driver of offending Bolero vehicle. As per pleadings made in claim application on the date of accident deceased Maitu Ram was travelling on motorcycle along with his nephew Manoj Vatti, while so, the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 dashed the motorcycle. Maitu Ram driver of the motorcycle died on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him. FIR was lodged by claimant No.1 Jilaram Netam who, from perusal of contents of FIR, does not appear to be an eyewitness to incident. He based on the information gathered had lodged the report. Police after investigation submitted final report as Ex.A-8 against non-applicant No.1 Mohan Sethiya. The police