High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:32399 NAFR 1 - Ku. Sangeeta D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 26 Years MAC No. 590 of 2019 2 - Ku. Ranjeeta D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 24 Years 3 - Ku. Geeta D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 22 Years 4 - Ku. Pravita D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 20 Years 5 - Ku. Satyabhama D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 18 Years 6 - Satya Prakash S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Legal Gaurdian Mother Smt. Suruj Bai (Appellant No. 7) 7 - Suruj Bai W/o Late Sitaram Aged About 55 Years All are R/o Village Nagoi, Near The Surya Chauk, Post - Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - Sudhir Paigor S/o Shri Budharam Paigor Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Suryawanshi Mohalla, Surya Chauka, Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda,civil And Revenue Distric Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of The Offending Vehicla Motor Cycle C.G. 10 Z 5547) --- Appellants 2 - Nanhe Say Suryawanshi S/o Shri Bisahu Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Suryawanshi Mohalla, Surya Chauka, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. 10 Z 5547) ….Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.26 11:15:13 +0530 11/07/2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of 2 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 17.12.2018, passed in Claim Case No. 177/2018, whereby the learned IInd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the claim application for grant of compensation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the death of Sitaram Kalyani, who died in the road accident on the ground that on 19.04.2017, while Sitaram Kalyani was returning home village Nagoi from Bilaspur on his bicycle, on the way the non- applicant No.1, riding motorcycle bearing No.C.G.-10-Z-5547 in rash and negligent manner dashed Sitaram. As a result of the accident, Sitaram Kalyani sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to those injuries during the treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 60 years of healthy and able bodied person, was earning Rs.10,000 - Rs.12,000/- by doing the work of agriculture and labourer. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased and due to his untimely death, they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 filed their reply in response to the application, denying all allegations made therein. It was pleaded that no accident occurred from the alleged offending vehicle. It was specifically denied that on the date of the incident, the said vehicle was being driven by Non-applicant No. 1 or that he caused any accident resulting in the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that 3 non-applicant No.1 had taken the deceased to the hospital when he was unwell. Subsequently, the family members of the deceased allegedly threatened non-applicant No.1 and demanded money from him. Claimants, in order to obtain compensation, in collusion with the police personnel have falsely implicated the offending vehicle in accident. Sitaram Kalyani died natural death due to hemorrhage. Aaccordingly prayed for rejection of the application. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the claimants could not prove that the deceased died because of the injuries suffered from the road accident. It was also held that the evidence placed on record did not show a clear connection between the accident and his death and accordingly dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim application by recording perverse findings, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record. It is contended that the occurrence of the accident involving the offending vehicle has been clearly established. In support of their contention, the claimants have produced substantial documentary evidence, including records from the criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of the offending vehicle. These documents include the FIR, charge sheet, and other materials that prima facie indicate the involvement of the offending vehicle and non-applicant No.1 in the accident. 6. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned 4 counsel for appellants and would submit that the accident occurred on 19.04.2017, however, the matter was reported to the concerned police station after about one month of accident. It is further contended that the claimants have asserted that immediately after the accident, the deceased, Sitaram Kalyani, was taken to Gayatri Hospital, Bilaspur, where he allegedly succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. However, the claimants have failed to produced any medical record, treatment summary, or hospital documents on record to substantiate their claim. Moreover, there is no material to show that the hospital authorities informed the local police regarding the death of Sitaram Kalyani due to the injuries suffered in a road accident. The lack of supporting documentary evidence, coupled with the omission to inform the police, raises serious concerns regarding the credibility of the sequence of events as presented by the claimants. It is further contended that if the deceased had died in the hospital due to motor accident injuries, a postmortem would have been conducted immediately to ascertain the cause of death. However, no such examination was carried out at that time. Instead, the postmortem was conducted belatedly on 19.05.2017, nearly a month after the accident, following exhumation of the body. This delay suggests that the death was not due to accident-related injuries but rather due to natural causes. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the claimants failed to establish that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of a road accident, which does not call for any interference. He prays for dismissal of appeal. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. In support of their claim, the claimants have placed on record the document of criminal case i.e Final Report (Ex..A.1), First Information (Ex.A.2), Intimation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Ex.A.3), Spot Map (Ex.A.-4), Application under Section 175 Cr.P.C. (Ex.A.-5), application form for postmortem (Ex.A.-6), postmortem report (Ex.A.-7), excavation panchnama (Ex.A.-8), Crime details Form (E.A.-9), seizure memo (Ex.A.-10 & Ex.A.-11), showing that police has filed charge- sheet against non-applicant No.1 for causing death of Sitaram Kalyani by rash and negligent driving. 9. Claimants examined Ku. Sangeeta as (A.W.-1), who stated in her evidence before the Claims Tribunal consistent with the pleadings in the claim application that the non-applicant No.1, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her father, causing him injuries to his leg, back, head, and other parts of the body. During cross-examination, she admitted that although the accident occurred on 19.04.2017, the report was lodged with the police only on 16.05.2017. Ku. Geeta (A.W.-2) also gave a similar statement. 10. Ajay Kumar (A.W.-3) stated in his evidence that on the date and time of the accident, he was present at the spot when the deceased, Sitaram, was heading towards his village, Nagoi. At that time, non- applicant No. 1, while riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, causing injuries that led to his death during treatment. He further stated that he lodged a complaint at the Sarkanda Police Station, but no action was taken on his complaint. 6 11. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 also examined Mahendra Suryawanshi as NAW-1, who stated in his evidence that he is a resident of village Nagoi and knew the deceased. He testified that Sitaram did not die in a road accident but passed away due to illness. He further stated that the applicants have filed a false case against the non-applicants. 12. Perusal of the record would show that the applicants have not submitted any documentary evidence regarding the accident that allegedly occurred on 19.04.2017. Normally, when an injured person is admitted to a hospital due to the injuries suffered in the road accident, the hospital informs the concerned police station. However, no such information or related document has been placed on record. If Sitaram was really admitted to the hospital and later died there, the hospital should have informed the police and kept records of his admission and treatment. 13. Morgue intimation (Ex.P-1) was registered by Geeta Kalyani on 16.05.2017 after about one month of accident. Excavation Panchanama (Ex.A-8) was prepared and body of the deceased was excavated from the grave and postmortem was conducted. From perusal of the postmortem report (Ex. P-7) reveals that no conclusive cause of death is mention, and it has not been clearly established that the deceased’s death resulted from the road accident. 14. Upon careful examination of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties, it apparent that although the applicants were aware about the accident caused by non-applicant no. 1, chose not to report the accident, the death was reported only a month after the incident. The applicants have not submitted any 7 hospital records showing that the deceased was admitted immediately after the accident or that the death resulted from it. They have presented Ajay (AW-3) as an eyewitness, who claimed to have seen the accident and immediately informed the Sarkanda Police Station. However, no supporting documents have been produced to substantiate his statement. In the absence of such, evidence, the claim of the applicants seems to be doubtful. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the claimants failed to prove that the death of Sitaram Kalyani was caused by a road accident resulting from the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1. 16. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram