Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.16 17:42:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:16990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1177 of 2018 1. Kalyan Singh S/o Late Ramayan Singh Aged About 69 Years Caste Kanwar Occupation Dependent, R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Sandeshi Bai W/o Shri Kalyan Singh Aged About 64 Years Caste Kanwar, Occupation - Depended, R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Suryakant S/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh Aged About 17 Years Minor, Caste Kanwar, Through His Natural Guardian i.e. Kalyan Singh (Appellant No.1), R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Ku. Stuti D/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh Aged About 8 Years Minor, Caste Kanwar, Through Her Natural Guardian i.e. Kalyan Singh ( Appellant No.1) , R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Dhansai Thakur S/o Shri Rampyare Thakur Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Advocacy, R/o Village Kanwarpur, Post Office And Police Station - Lakhnpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Motor Cycle Splendor CG 15 C A 6739) 2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Near 2 Kumkum Hotel, Bramh Road, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. CG 15 CP 6233 ) 3. Jitendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Awadh Prasad Singh, R/o Village Taraju, Post Jamgala, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Vehicle No. C G 15 CA 6739) 4. Ku. Pritirupa Singh Aged About 15 (Now 19) Years, D/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh Caste - Kanwar R/o Village Anantpur, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.(Claimant No. 3 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.3 : : : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Decision
Order on Board 11 / 0 4 / 202 5 1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Central Filing No.231/2014 whereby the claim application preferred by the claimants has been rejected. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 17.03.2014 at about 2 pm, deceased Krishna Kumar Singh was going from village Anantpur to Ambikapur on his sold motorcycle Honda Twister No. CG 15 CP 6233 to deliver Holi sweets to his son and daughter. When he reached near village Navapara Jagga turn, respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur driving the offending motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 15 CA 6739 in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle, as a result of which, Krishna Kumar suffered grievous injuries and died. 3 3. The claimants who are the parents and children of the deceased preferred a claim application under section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.45,51,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, rejected their claim application vide impugned order dated 14.05.2018, leading to the filing of this appeal. 4. The basis for rejection of the claim application by the Tribunal is that firstly it is not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur and secondly the deceased was the owner and driver of Honda Twister on which he was travelling but he had not paid any premium for the owner & driver. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-claimants is that the accident was caused by respondent No.1 Dhansai by hitting the motorcycle of deceased Krishna Kumar with the motorcycle in question, therefore, considering the negligence on the part of respondent No.1, the award should be passed. The second argument is that the motorcycle Honda Twister on which the deceased was travelling was insured by respondent No.2 Insurance Company and the Policy was a package policy under which the risk of the owner/driver was also covered, therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable for compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 3 submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of dismissal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is a case of collision between two motorcycles. One motorcycle Honda Twister No.CG 15 CP 6233 was being driven by Krishna 4 Kumar Singh who died in the accident. The said motorcycle was owned by deceased Krishna Kumar himself and it was insured with respondent No.2. Another motorcycle was Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 15 CA 6739 which was being driven by respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur, owned by respondent No.3 and it was not insured. 9. As regards the first argument of the appellants that considering the negligence on the part of respondent No.1 the award should be passed, the father of the deceased, Kalyan Singh (AW-1) has been examined on behalf of the claimants who is not the spot witness. His oral evidence regarding negligence on the part of respondent No.1 has not been corroborated by any eye witness. Charge sheet has not been filed in the case. Considering the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal, while discussing this issue in detail in paragraphs- 15 & 16, has held that from the evidence it is proved that the accident occurred due to collision between two motorcycles but it is not proved that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. It is also not stated in the evidence of claimants that the Police had filed any charge sheet against respondent No.1 Dhansai regarding the accident. Rather as per the written statement of Dhansai, the Police had submitted a closure report on the FIR lodged against him. As such, it is not proved that on the date, time and place of incident, the respondent No.1 caused the accident by driving the offending motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, the said finding of the Tribunal being based on the evidence on record does not require any interference. 10. The second argument of the appellant is that the motorcycle Honda Twister was insured by respondent No.2 and the Policy was a package policy under which the risk of the owner & driver was also covered, therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable for compensation. 5 In this regard, the Administrative Officer Rakesh Kumar Vidyarthi NAW-1) has been examined on behalf of the respondent No.2- Insurance Company who has proved the insurance policy of motorcycle Honda Twister No. CG 15 CP 6233 exhibited as Ex.D-1. As per the insurance policy Ex.D-1, no premium amount was paid to cover the risk of the owner or driver. Deceased Krishna Kumar was the owner of motorcycle Honda Twister. He himself was driving the said motorcycle when the accident took place. The Tribunal while discussing it in paragraphs 23-29 of the impugned order has held that though the policy was a package policy but no premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner/driver, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from the respondent No.2 - insurance company. This finding of the Tribunal also appears to be proper. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any irregularity or error in the impugned order of dismissal of the claim application calling for interference. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai