ANKIT v. Umesh Kumar Rajwade

:- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

01.04.2026

Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.

The claim applications of two appellants herein/claimants has been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) vide order dated

18.03.2019 in Claim Cases No. 80 /2015 & 30/2016 on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending has not been established. 3 MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

Mr. Praveen Dhrurandhar, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that both the claimants are the eye witness to the incident and they have seen the incident and there is no reason to not rely upon their statements. He would also submit that the FIR was lodged by Diwakar (claimant) against the driver of the offending vehicle for offence under Section 279 & 337 of the IPC and charge- sheet filed against him is pending consideration before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court.

Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, would opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

Admittedly, both the claimants are the eye witness to the incident, they have supported the case their case by stating that offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed their motorcycle by which they laid down and suffered injuries pursuant to which FIR was lodged against the driver-Umesh Kumar Rajwade of the offending vehicle and charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC vide Ex.P/1. In this regard observation made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Bai and others v. ICICI 4 MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019 Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and another 1 at para4 which states as under:-

4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established

Similarly, para 11 of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and others v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited 2 may also be noticed:-

11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.

In light of principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above stated Judgments and in view of the testimony of the eye witnesses and also prosecution of the driver for offence under Section 337 of the IPC, negligence on the part of the 1 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992 (2020) 10 SCC 512 5 MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019 driver is clearly established furthermore, permanent disability has also been found by the Claims Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is partly set aside and the matter is remitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal who is directed to reassess the compensation of the claimants within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.

With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant appeals stand disposed off. Ankit Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge