Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 910 of 2019 1 - Sukhnandan S/o Shiv Singh Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kenwachhi, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Kisan Verma S/o Kamlesh Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Padumsara, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashwani @ Ajay Verma S/o Kriparam Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Padumsara, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 07/07/2025 Order On Board 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No. 55/2017. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 02.01.2017, father of the claimant i.e. Late Shiv Singh along with his wife Roopkunwar Bai was traveling 2 on T.V.S. moped bearing registration no. CG 25 4509. His moped was dashed by the Non-Applicant No. 1 driving the motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 07 AK 3734 rashly and negligently. The father and mother of the claimant suffered injuries over their persona, they were taken to hospital. After taking treatment both of them were discharged on 15.02.2017. Shiv Singh died on 16.02.2017 and Roopkunwar Bai died on 28.02.2017. Accident was reported to the concerned police station and crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 16/2017, P.S. Bemetara, District - Bemetara for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Charge-sheet was filed against the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 for the alleged commission of the aforementioned offences. 3. The claimants/applicants have filed the joint application seeking compensation against the death of his father and mother. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record has dismissed the claim application observing that as Shiv Singh drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently and took a sudden turn resulting in collusion with the motorcycle being driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 and held that the rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No. 1 is not proved and dismissed the claim. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application against the death of the father and mother of the claimants/applicants only on one ground that the rash and negligence driving of the Non-applicant No. 1 is not proved which is perverse to the evidence available on record. In support of his contention, he referred to the copy of the F.I.R. as also 3 the Final Report filed as Ex. P/1 and P/2. He also submits that immediately after the accident, his parents were taken to District Hospital, Bemetara on 02.01.2017 i.e. the date of accident. M.L.C. of both the deceased is filed as Ex. P/4 and P/5. Considering the severe injuries both of them were admitted to V Care Hospital, Raipur. Copies of the documents is placed on record as Ex. P/21. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants would submit that the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that there was no rash and negligent driving by the Non-applicant No. 1, is upon appreciation of the facts and evidence. Learned Claims Tribunal has appreciated the evidence of Sevakram (NAW-3) and Nandkumar (NAW-4). In the evidence, the aforementioned witness have categorically stated that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the deceased Shiv Singh. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case and copy of the award passed. 7. To appreciate the submission of the counsel for the respective parties, the question which arises before this Court is whether the learned Claims Tribunal justified in dismissing the claim recording a finding that the accident was not a result of rash and negligent driving of the Non- Applicant No. 1? And even if the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is to be appreciated, then, the pillion rider of the vehicle can file the claim against the driver and owner of the other vehicle or not?. 8. So far as the first question formulated by this Court is whether the learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that accident 4 was not a result of rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No. 1 is concerned, the claimant i.e. son of the deceased persons have filed the documents of the police case. In the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) and Final Report (Ex. P/2), there is mention that the claimant reported the matter to the concerned police station alleging rash and negligent driving of the Non-Applicant No. 1. The claimant in his evidence-in-chief has stated that he saw, happening of the accident while he was going to Bemetara. In the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) also, the similar fact is mentioned. No other witness had been examined by the claimant in support of the pleadings made in the claim application. The F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) was lodged not on the same date of accident, but on the next date i.e. 03.01.2017 at about 02:45 P.M. whereas, the accident is dated 02.01.2017 at about 04:20 P.M. The Non-applicant No. 1 is examined as NAW -1, Non-applicant No. 2 as NAW - 2, Sevakram as NAW - 3 and Nandkumar Verma as NAW – 4. In their evidence-in-chief, they have categorically stated that Shiv Singh while driving his moped has suddenly made a turn, due to which, the motorcycle coming from backside, rided by the Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 dashed the moped and they also fell down. 9. In view of the evidence of both the witnesses available on record, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal justified in concluding that the claimant failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the Non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the claim with respect to deceased Shiv Singh has rightly been dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal because, to seek compensation against the driver/owner or insurance 5 company of the other side, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the other vehicle involved is required to be proved. 10. So far as the claim with respect to the deceased mother of the applicant/claimant is concerned, admittedly, she was a pillion rider and for her, it will be composite negligence of driver of both the vehicles and therefore, she can file claim application against the driver/owner of any of the vehicle. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 has observed thus: “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 6 12. The Claims Tribunal has not considered as to whether even if treating Shiv Singh (driver of the moped) to be negligent, the claim of the pillion rider of the moped cannot be dismissed, when the claim application is filed seeking compensation against the driver and owner of the other vehicle also. 13. In view of the above discussion and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the death of the deceased Roop Kunwar (pillion) on the two-wheeler moped and therefore, the said finding with respect to dismissing the claim against the death of Roop Kunwar is not sustainable and it is accordingly, set-aside. 14. The learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased and has not computed the amount of compensation and therefore, I find it appropriate to remit back the case before the learned Claims Tribunal to compute the amount of compensation against the death of Late Roop Kunwar only, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the claim application. 15. So far as the appeal against the rejection of the claim against the death of Shiv Singh is concerned, it is upheld. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge