Amrit Lal Prajapati S/o Shri Suklal Prajapati Aged About 25 Years R/o Kurru Chowki v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1260 of 2019 Amrit Lal Prajapati S/o Shri Suklal Prajapati Aged About 25 Years R/o Kurru Chowki Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner). --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari Patel W/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Bhumika D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother, R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Hemlata D/o Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 10 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother, R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Soniya D/o Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 8 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother, R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Mohnis Kumar Patel S/o Late Dhananjay Patel Aged About 16 Years Through The Legal Guardian Aunty Tikeshari Patel, R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Chhaya Patel S/o Late Dhananjay Patel Aged About 13 Years Through The Legal Guardian Aunty Tikeshari Patel, R/o Ward No. 04, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). 2 7 - Goyal Auto Mobiles Through The Manager, Goyal Auto Mobiles Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 8 - Manager Bansal Agency Dabhra Road, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : None
Legal Reasoning
For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAC No. 1329 of 2019 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari Patel W/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Bhumika D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 12 Years Appellant No. 2 To 4 Through Their Guardian Mother And Appellant No. 5 To 6 Through Their Gurdian Aunty Tikeshwari Patel R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Hemlata D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 10 Years Appellant No. 2 To 4 Through Their Guardian Mother And Appellant No. 5 To 6 Through Their Gurdian Aunty Tikeshwari Patel R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Soniya D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 8 Years Appellant No. 2 To 4 Through Their Guardian Mother And Appellant No. 5 To 6 Through Their Gurdian Aunty Tikeshwari Patel R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Mohnis Kumar S/o Late Dhananjay Patel Aged About 16 Years Appellant No. 2 To 4 Through Their Guardian Mother And Appellant No. 5 To 6 Through Their Gurdian Aunty Tikeshwari Patel R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Chhaya D/o Late. Dhananjay Patel Aged About 13 Years Appellant No. 2 To 4 Through Their Guardian Mother And Appellant No. 5 To 6 Through Their Gurdian Aunty Tikeshwari Patel R/o Ward No. 4, Karuwadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 Versus ---Appellants 1 - Amrit Lal Prajapati S/o Shri Suklal Prajapati Aged About 25 Years R/o Kurru Chowki Jobi Thana Kharsiya, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Goyal Automobiles Through Manager, Goyal Auto Mobiles Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh Chhattisgarh.(Owner). 3 - Manager Bansal Agency Dhabhra Road Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants. : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None For Res. No. 2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate For Res. No.3 : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate And MAC No. 1864 of 2019 Goyal Automobiles Through Its Proprietor Ashish Goyal, S/o Shri Harishankar Goyal, Aged About 45 Years, Proprietor Of Goyal Automobiles, R/o Dhimrapur Road Raigarh, Police Station And Tahsil Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Non- Applicant No. 2). ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Tikeshwari Patel W/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Bhumika D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tikeshwari Patel, R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Hemlata D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tikeshwari Patel, R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Soniya D/o Late Tikeshwar Patel Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tikeshwari Patel, R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 5 - Mohnis Kumar Patel S/o Late Dhananjay Patel Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Guardian Aunty Respondent No. 1 Smt. Tikeshwari Patel, R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Chhaya Patel D/o Late Dhananjay Patel Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Guardian Aunty Respondent No.1 Smt. Tikeshwari Patel, R/o Ward No.4, Village Karuvadih, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Amrit Lal Prajapati S/o Shri Suklal Prajapati Aged About 25 Years R/o Kurru Chowki Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.1). 8 - Manager Bansal Agency Dabhra Road Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} --- Respondents For Appellants. For Res No. 1 to 6 For Res. No. 7 For Res. No.8 : : : : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate None Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10/09/2025 1. All these three appeals are arising out of common award dated 29.04.2019 passed by the First Upper Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth, 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 14 of 2018, hence, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. 2. MAC No. 1260 of 2019 has been filed by the driver of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No. CG13 UC 6329, MAC No. 1329 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal whereas MAC 1864 of 5 2019 has been filed by the dealer /owner of the motorcycle seeking exoneration from payment of compensation to the claimants. A Cross- objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by respondent No. 8 in MAC No. 1864 of 2019 for exoneration from payment of compensation amount under award. {For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the claim petition} 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, MV Act, 1988) has been filed by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.49,06,000/- pleading inter alia that on the date of accident i.e. 17.11.2017 at about 3.00 pm, when deceased – Tikeshwar Patel was going towards Kharasiya by riding his Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 13 UC 6329, on the way towards Kharasiya, a new sold motorcycle Glamour was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased resulting into severe injures on his head and succumbed to those injuries. As per avermetns made in the claim petition, the deceased, who was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, was Ayurvedic doctor by profession and used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1/driver -Amrit Lal Prajapati of the offending vehicle filed his written statement denying the substantive averments made in the claim application stating that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle, rather the deceased drove his motorcycle rashly & negligently and dashed to the motorcycle of the driver/respondent No. 1, thus, since on the date of accident, he was not the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. 4. The dealer /owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Goyal Automobiles filed 6 its written statement denying the averments of the claim application and stated that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle and the said motorcycle was delivered to the driver on 16.10.2017 through Bansal Agency, Dabhra Road, Kharasiya, District Raigarh and at the time of accident, the driver was the owner and possession holder of the offending vehicle. After the incident, respondent No. 1/driver has taken the offending vehicle on Supurdnama from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharasiya on 29.01.2018. Thus, the respondent No. 2/Goyal Automobiles is not responsible for payment of compensation. According to the award, respondent No. 3- Bansal Agency remained ex-parte and did not file its written statement. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.7,19,000/- in favour of the claimants and held the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Amrit Lal Prajapati, Goyal Auto Mobile and Bansal Agency are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, Amrit Lal Prazapati and Goyal Automobiles have filed these appeals which have been indicated above and for enhancement, the claimants have also filed the above stated appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 8. Learned counsel for the Driver-Amritlal Prajapati and Goyal Automobiles submit that they are not liable to pay compensation to 7 the claimants, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, hence, they may be exonerated from their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. In cross-objection, Ms. Dangi, learned counsel submits that the Bansal Agency was arrayed as respondent No. 3 by the claimants in the claim application by allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and thereafter making suitable amendment. She submits that though the notice of application under Order 1 Rules 10 of CPC was served to respondent No. 3, however, after respondent No. 3 Bansal Agency was arrayed as respondent in the claim petition, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to issue notice to respondent No. 3 on merits of the claim application, but the same has not been done therefore, the respondent No. 3 Bansal Agency could not file any written statement and place the defence before the learned Claims Tribunal for adjudication of the claim application on merits. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 11. This Court is not going to intricacy as to whether Amritlal Prazapati respondent No. 1 in original claim application, Goyal Automobiles, respondent No. 2 in original claim application or Bansal Agency, respondent No. 3 in original claim application is responsible for payment of compensation or not. 12. From the record, it appears that initially the claim application was filed by the claimants inter alia arraying Amritlal Prazapati as respondent No. 1 and Goyal Automobiles as respondent No. 2. Further perusal of record of the Claims tribunal would indicate that on 13.11.2018, the claimants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and notice was directed to be issued to proposed respondent i.e. Bansal 8 Agency by paying a process fee through ordinary mode as well as by registered post. Thereafter, again on 01.12.2018, the notice was directed to be issued by ordinary and registered post. Thereafter, the case was transferred from 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh to First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh. On 23.01.2019, the name of proposed party was called as no representation was made, he was proceeded ex-parte and application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed and Bansal Agency was directed to be arrayed as party respondent No. 3. Thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed, which was allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal on 14.02.2019 and amendment was incorporated in the claim application arraying the Bansal Agency as respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording evidence of the parties. On subsequent dates, the matter was adjourned on a couple of occasions and order-sheet reflected that the Bansal Agency proceeded ex-parte. Later on, final award was passed on 29.04.2019 by First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 14/2018. 13. Of course, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was served upon the proposed respondent No. 3 - Bansal Agency but after the amendment was incorporated and it was arrayed as respondent No. 3, the record does not reflect as to whether the notice of the claim application was issued to it. As notice of the claim application filed by the claimants have not been issued, neither the respondent No. 3 could make its appearance nor file any written statement or take proper defence. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to set aside 9 the impugned award and remit the case before the learned Claim Tribunal for adjudication of the case on merits permitting the parties to file pleading, amended pleadings, lead evidence and file documents and, thereafter, decide the claim application in accordance with law on its own merits. If any amount has been deposited in compliance of any interim order passed by this Court, and if it is disbursed to the claimant, the same shall not be recovered and the same would be subject to out come of the result of the claim application. 15. The parties are directed to remain present on 16th of October, 2025 before the Claims Tribunal. It is expected that learned Claims Tribunal would make all the endeavor to decide the claim application expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it i.e. 16.10.2025. 16. Cross-objection filed by respondent No. 8 in MAC No. 1864 of 2019 is
Decision
allowed and the misc. appeal thus, stands disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.17 18:38:17 +0530