1 - Hora Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Its In Charge, Hora Transport Company v. 1 - Vyas Narayan S/o Gendlal Verma, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And
Case Details
1 MAC No. 1280 of 2017 2025:CGHC:25985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1280 of 2017 1 - Hora Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Its In Charge, Hora Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Resident And Post Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner Of Truck Vehicle No. C G 04 8981 , Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Vyas Narayan S/o Gendlal Verma, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Office Bathena, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Godavari Bai, W/o Vyasnarayan Verma, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Office Bathena, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kailash Prasad, S/o Ramadhar Sahu, R/o Village Kushiyari, Post Kushiyari, P. S. Bahri, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh Present Address Hora Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Resident And Post Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Driver Of The Offending Vehicle , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited, Through Its In Charge, I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited, Lalganga, Shoping Mall Complex, G. E. Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurance Company Of Offending Vehicle, 2 MAC No. 1280 of 2017 District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dharmendra Verma, S/o Shatruhan Verma, R/o Gazi Nagar, Birgaon, P. S. Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration C G 04 C M 4474 Near Anupama Talkies, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh For Appellant/owner --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record, and submissions made by both parties, it is held that the learned Claims Tribunal has given due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including contributory negligence, and has awarded just and reasonable compensation. The appellant’s contention of error in appreciation of evidence and contributory negligence is without merit. The impugned award is neither perverse nor illegal. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/owner is hereby dismissed. 9.
Arguments
: Shri Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. This is an appeal by the owner of the offending truck against the award dated 29.4.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.29 of 2011, in which compensation of Rs.2,44,500/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the owner of the truck, i.e., the appellant herein to pay the compensation. 2. Claim of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 before the Claims Tribunal was that on 21.5.2010 at about 7:05 p.m., the son of the claimants was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 04 CM 4474. The motorcycle was being ridden by the son of the claimants, namely, Purendra alias Chhotu and one Nootan Verma was pillion rider on the motorcycle. They were on the way from Village Ghoudi to Mandir Hasoud. A truck bearing registration 3 MAC No. 1280 of 2017 No.CG 04 G 8981 was parked on the mid of the road and no parking light was shown in the parked truck. Due to negligence of the driver of the offending truck, the motorcycle dashed with the offending truck, as a result of which, the son of the claimants succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in its appreciation of the evidence concerning the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was stationary and parked, and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, who failed to observe the presence of the stationary vehicle. Further, the learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, which materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal’s failure to recognize and appreciate the contributory negligence amounts to a grave error in the assessment of facts. 4. Moreover, the learned trial court misinterpreted the evidence placed before it by the appellant, and the findings rendered thereon are perverse and unsustainable in law. The evidence clearly establishes the appellant’s case, yet the Tribunal’s conclusion is contrary to the materials on record. It is also 4 MAC No. 1280 of 2017 pertinent to note that, in compliance with the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned Tribunal. Copies of the receipt and demand draft evidencing such deposit are annexed herewith as Annexure-A-2 for kind consideration. In view of the foregoing submissions, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as it is perverse, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The appellant, therefore, respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants submits that the impugned Award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. He goes on to submit that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just, fair, and adequate compensation under various heads and has instead granted a grossly inadequate amount, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellants. The Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a mere. In light of the above, the appeal filed by the Owner is liable to be dismissed to ensure justice is done to the appellants/claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 - insurance company opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and claimants, submits that the compensation 5 MAC No. 1280 of 2017 awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7.
Decision
No order as to costs. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Gopal Singh/Saxena Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE