Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.26 15:33:54 +0530 2025:CGHC:48773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 493 of 2020 1. Smt. Pramila Nishad Wd/o Santosh Nishad Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Madhu D/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Parmila Nishad , Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Damini D/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Parmila Nishad , Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4. Ku. Tarni Nishad D/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Parmila Nishad , Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5. Ku. Gomti Nishad D/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Parmila Nishad , Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6. Chumman Nishad S/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Their Mother Smt. Parmila Nishad , Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Janki Bai Nishad Wd/o Khelan Nishad Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Village Arjuni, Tahsil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Top Of Balaji Medical , In Front Of Madhur Courier, New Bus Stand , Bemetara , Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. Krishan Lal Sharma S/o Mukund Lal Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Keshtara, Post Office Chandanu, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3. Parmeshwar Sharma S/o Mukund Lal Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o 2 Ward No. 06, Mohbhattha, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) with MAC No. 530 of 2020 Rajendra Nishad S/o Dukhitram Nishad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Darchura, Police Station And Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Top Of Balaji Medical In Front Of Madhur Courier, New Bus Stand, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. Kishan Lal Sharma S/o Mukund Lal Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Keshtara, Post Office Chandanu, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3. Parmeshwar Sharma S/o Mukund Lal Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 6 Mohabhattha, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 09.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal against award passed by the Motor MAC No. 493 of 2020 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 62/2019 dated 27.01.2020, whereby the claim case filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal against award passed by the Motor MAC No. 530 of 2020 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 61/2019 dated 27.01.2020, whereby the claim case filed by the appellant has been 3 dismissed. 3. The facts of the present case are that the claimants filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act depicting the fact that on 04.01.2019, Santosh Nishad and his borther-in-law Rajendra Nishad were going to village Kanteli on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 G 2199. At around 12 o’ clock offending motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081 dashed the motorcycle, consequently, Santosh Nishad and Rejendra Nishad sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital and during course of treatment, Santosh Nishad died. An FIR was lodged by Rajendra Nishad at Police Station – Bemetara on 17.02.2019. They would further pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years and he was a Mason. It is also pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, thus, they claimed a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- jointly and severally from driver, owner and Insurance company. 4. The Insurance company filed its reply and denied the contents of the claim application. It was pleaded that FIR was lodged after one and half month and the offending motorbike was not involved in the accident and subsequently, it was implanted. 5. The parties led evidence and the learned Claims Tribunal vide award dated 27.01.2020 dismissed the claim case on the ground that the registration number of the motorcycle was disclosed after one and half month and there is no explanation as to how the claimants got details of offending motorcycle. The learned Tribunal further recorded a finding that in MLC Ex. NA1 and NA2 involvement of a white colour car was disclosed by the injured persons. 6. In MAC No. 493 of 2020, Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that an FIR was lodged on 17.02.2019 by Rajendra 4 Nishad against the driver of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081. He would further submit that the statement recorded in the MLC form would not be relevant when there is specific allegation against the offending motorcycle. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while dismissing the claim case. 7. In MAC No. 530 of 2020, Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that an FIR was lodged on 17.02.2019 by the appellant itself against the driver of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081. He would further submit that the appellant is aged about 32 years, working as Farmer and earning Rs. 2,00,000/- annually. He would also submit that appellant is unable to work in agricultural field on account of injuries sustained in the accident, therefore, he is entitled for compensation under various heads including the expenses incurred in treatment. He would contend that the statement recorded in the MLC form would not be relevant when there is specific allegation against the offending motorcycle. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while dismissing the claim case. 8. Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate, would submit that during the medical examination statements of injured were recorded vide Ex. NA1 and NA2 on 04.01.2019 and the offending vehicle was disclosed as a white coloured unknown car. He would further submit that when the claimants could not trace unknown white coloured car, they implanted a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, date of incident is 04.01.2019. Santosh Nishad and Rajendra Nishad were medically examined at District Hospital, Bemetara on same 5 date. It appears that on their instance, the police officials mentioned in the MLC form that their motorcycle was dashed by unknown white coloured car. FIR was lodged by the injured Rajendra Nishad on 17.02.2019, wherein first time involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081 was disclosed. The witnesses examined by the claimants have not disclosed the source as to how they came to know about involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081 in the accident. 11. Pramila Nishad, wife of the deceased has admitted this fact that she was not an eye witness. In para 6, she has further admitted the fact that she does not know which vehicle was involved in the accident. 12. Rajendra Nishad, who was in company of the deceased and who is appellant in MAC No. 530 of 2020 deposed that driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 25 B 4081 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. He further admitted the fact that he never made any complaint to the superior police authorities with regard to statement recorded in MLC. 13. Praveen Verma AW1, a constable who recorded MLC statement has deposed that Rajendra Nishad and Santosh Nishrad had informed that their motorcycle was dashed by unknown white coloured car. In the cross- examination, this witness remained firm. 14. Admittedly, there are discrepancies in the contents of FIR and MLC. Two MLCs were registered on 04.01.2019 itself, whereas FIR was lodged on 17.02.2019 after one and half month from the date of accident, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly found the contents of FIR doubtful. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal in both the cases. Consequently, both the appeals 6 are hereby dismissed. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge