Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 838 of 2020 1 - Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Rupram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill. - Supela, Post - Semra, P.S. - Bakhara, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.. Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Narendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. - Supela, Post - Semra, P.S. - Bakhara, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh and Om Prakash Sahu S/o Narendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 14 Years R/o Vill. - Supela, Post - Semra, P.S. - Bakhara, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, were also claimant before the Tribunal but they do not want to file appeal, therefore, they have not been made party in the present appeal. --- Appellants versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Suresh Verma S/o Shyam Lal Verma First Add. - Vill. - Beejabhata, P.S. - Kunda, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. Second Add. - Through Dalbir Sharma S/o D.C. Sharma, R/o Quarter No. 401/ C.H. 15, Block S.E.C.L. Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck Bearing No. C.G.-12-C- 1745), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dalbir Sharma S/o D.C. Sharma R/o Quarter No. 401/ C.H. 15, Block S.E.C.L. Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Truck Bearing No. C.G.-12-C-1745). BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 10:48:16 +0530
Legal Reasoning
3 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Through - Manager, Plot No. 08, Sandhya Prakash Press Road Malviy Nagar Bhopal M.P. ( Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. C.G.-12-C-1745). 2 4 - Smt. Meena Bai W/o Lt. Budhram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill. - Bhateli, Tah. - Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).. 5 - Smt.Kunti Bai W/o Narendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years . 6 - Om Prakash Sahu S/o Narendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Kunti Bai, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Narendra Kumar Sahu, No.5 & 6 both are R/o Vill.- Supela, P.O. Semra, P.S.- Bakhara, Distt.- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/07/2025 1. Claimant No.1/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the impugned award dated 14.11.2017, passed in Claim Case No.39 of 2011, whereby the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the claim application holding that earlier the claim case arising out of the same accident has already been decided by the learned Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, therefore, the subsequent application for grant of compensation is not maintainable. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Kamta Prasad Sahu, who died in the road accident, pleading 3 therein that on 27.07.2010, at about 3:30 a.m., non-Applicant No. 1 while driving the offending truck bearing registration number C.G.12-C- 1745 in a rash and negligent manner near Shankar Nagar, Lavdhaba, Simga collided with another stationary truck bearing registration number C.G.-04J-7257, causing an accident. As a result of the collision, Kamta Prasad, who was seated inside the truck No.C.G.- 12C-1745, suffered fatal injuries and died. It is pleaded that at the time of the accident, deceased, Kamta Prasad, was an able-bodied person aged 18 years and was working as a driver, earning an annual income of Rs. 40,000/-. The claimants were dependents upon the income of deceased and, due to his untimely death, are facing severe financial hardship. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte, no reply was filed on their behalf. Non-applicant No.3 filed reply to the claim application pleading therein that claim application has been filed on false and fabricated grounds. It was specifically pleaded that due to the death of Kamta Prasad in a road accident, earlier claim application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, i.e. mother, had already been decided by the learned Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, on 28.07.2011 awarding compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- in favor of the claimant in that case. Therefore, the subsequent application arising out of the same accident is not maintainable. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, dismissed the claim application holding that earlier claim filed by the deceased’s legal heir, the mother, was decided by the learned Claims Tribunal, 4 Dhamtari, on 28.07.2011, awarding Rs. 3,01,000/- to the claimant, therefore, the subsequent application is not maintainable and rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim filed by the appellants/claimants on the ground that earlier the mother of the deceased filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari and learned Claims Tribunal Dhamtari has awarded compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- in her favour. He submits that appellants, who are father, step mother and brother of deceased were also dependent upon deceased. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal justified in dismissing the claim application filed by appellants/claimants observing that against the death of Kamta Prasad one of the Claims Tribunal has already awarded compensation, therefore, the claimant would not be entitled for getting the compensation again for the motor accidental death of deceased Kamta Prasad. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. During the course of argument when Court posed question based upon the finding recorded by the learned Claims tribunal in para -13 that mother of the deceased Kamta Prasad already filed application seeking compensation before learned Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, which was allowed and the compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- is awarded. Learned counsel for appellants submits that he is not disputing the 5 finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in para -13 of the award, he however, submitted that claimants were also dependent upon the deceased. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case when it is not disputed that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that against death of Kamta Prasad one claim application was filed by mother of deceased before the Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, which was allowed and Rs.3,01,000/- is already awarded as early as on 06.11.2013 in the opinion of this Court, the second application seeking compensation for the same accident and the death of Kamta Prasadi is not maintainable. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that compensation has already been decided and therefore, the subsequent claim application is not maintainable is upon appreciation of facts and evidence available on record before the learned Claims Tribunal, which does not call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Balram Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge