Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1430 of 2019 1. Kumari Anita Manikpuri D/o Late Aarti Das Aged About 17 Years Minor Through ( Amicus-Curie) Smt. Laxmin Bai W/o Beduram, aged about 46 Year, R/o Village- Khamhari, Takhatpur, Bilaspur, District ( Revenue And Civil)- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Kumari Vinita Manikpuri D/o Late Aarti Das Aged About 14 Years Minor Through ( Amicus-Curie) Smt. Laxmin Bai W/o Beduram, Aged About-46 Year, R/o Village- Khamhari, Takhatpur, Bilaspur, District ( Revenue And Civil)- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Kumari Nikita Manikpuri D/o Late Aarti Das Aged About 11 Years Minor Through ( Amicus-Curie) Smt. Laxmin Bai W/o Beduram, Aged About-46 Year, R/o Village- Khamhari, Takhatpur, Bilaspur, District ( Revenue And Civil)- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Dinadas Manikpuri S/o Mangaldas Manikpuri R/o Village And Police Station- Bodla, District- Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, (Driver of Mini Bus No. C.G. 09-F-0160) 2. Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Ramadhar Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.-13, Kawardha, District- ( Revenue And 2 Civil )- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of The Mini Bus No. C.G. 09-F-0160) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office-Rama Trade Centre, Near Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District- (Revenue And Civil)- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of The Mini Bus No. C.G.09- F-0160) ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that claim cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Considering the documentary evidence available in record with regard to treatment of injuries suffered by the deceased in the road accident, report lodged by injured in concerned police station after taking treatment in the hospital of the injuries suffered, filing of final report after completion of investigation by the police against respondent No.1 herein, driver of offending vehicle, seizure of offending vehicle in the course of investigation, evidence of Dr. Vipin Vaishya (AW-1) wherein he has stated that he treated Aartidas, who suffered injuries in a road traffic accident, for the period from 28.10.2015 to 8.6.2016 and evidence of eyewitness, this Court is of the considered view that finding of the Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and causing grievous injuries to the deceased is not sustainable in law and therefore it is 9 hereby set aside. It is held that deceased suffered injuries in a road traffic accident which was caused by respondent No.1- driver by driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 framed by the Claims Tribunal is answered in affirmative. 16. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for considering and deciding other issues as framed and to pass the award afresh after considering the entire evidence brought on record by the respective parties. 17. The Registry is directed to send back the record of claim case forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 12.8.2025. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/-
Arguments
For Appellant For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 24/06/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this challenging the award dated 16.5.2019 passed in Claim Case No.741/2016 by which learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur has dismissed the application of claimants for grant of compensation for the death of Aarti Das in a road accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants/appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.51,00,000/- pleading that on 28.10.2015 when Aarti Das in connection with official work was going to his native village Khamariya from Bilaspur, on the way vehicle bearing registration number CG09-F-0160, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed him as a result he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Ankur 3 Trauma Care and Nursing Home from where he took long treatment. He died on 18.7.2016. Report of accident was lodged in concerned police station based on which Crime No.45/16 for the alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was working as Panchayat Secretary, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and the claimants were dependent on the income of deceased. 3. Non-applicant No.1, driver and owner of offending vehicle jointly filed denying accident from their vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, in case of award of any compensation, liability to satisfy the same would be of insurance company. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed reply denying the fact of accident. 4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, dismissed the claim application of claimants by holding that the claimants failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of offending vehicle/other vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application overlooking the evidence brought on record establishing the fact that deceased with motor vehicular accident on 4 28.10.2015, suffered injuries including fracture of right leg, took treatment at Ankur Trauma Care and Nursing Home, Bilaspur as inpatient, discharged from hospital on 2.11.2015. He submits that the Claims Tribunal rejected claim of appellants observing that rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 is not proved, which is erroneous. He contended that immediately after the accident, report was lodged in concerned police station based upon which FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, final report was also submitted before the competent Court against the respondent No.1 herein, driver of offending vehicle. From these facts / documentary evidence available in record, it is evident that the deceased met with an accident with offending vehicle and considering the contents of FIR and final report, it is apparent that respondent No.1 herein while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence rightly concluded that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1 herein. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 8. Perusal of claim application would show that it is an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed on 13.12.2016 i.e. after death of deceased on 18.7.2016. In the application there is specific pleading that on the date of accident i.e. 28.10.2015, when the deceased was returning to his village on motorcycle bearing registration mark CG10-S- 3590, non-applicant No.1-driver by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed motorcycle of deceased. In the said accident, Aartidas suffered multiple injuries including fracture injury on his right leg. He was admitted in Ankur Trauma Care and Nursing Home, Bilaspur. He died on 18.7.2016 while undergoing treatment. 9. The Claims Tribunal dismissed claim application only on the ground that the claimants failed to prove rash and negligent act on the part of the non-applicant No.1-driver. Other issues framed were not considered and decided. 10. Appellants-claimants have placed on record copy of MLC report of Aartidas, which is dated 1.2.2016 and copy of discharge card of Ankur Trauma Care and Nursing Home, Bilaspur in which date of admission of deceased is mentioned as 28.10.2015 and date of discharge is mentioned as 2.112015 and upon diagnosis, fracture of tibia condyle, right 6 lateral condyle displaced was noticed. Medical prescriptions are also filed of subsequent dates on which injured Aartidas consulted with the doctor i.e. on 9.11.2015, 11.12.2015, 29.12.2015, 29.1.2016, 25.5.2016. Copy of FIR is also filed as Ex.P-8 in which date of accident is mentioned as 28.10.2015 at about 04:50 p.m. and date on which information received at police station is mentioned as 30.1.2016. Another FIR is placed on record as Ex.P-9, in which date of accident is mentioned as 28.10.2015 and date of receipt of information is mentioned as 29.1.2016. 11. From the above documents it is appearing that immediately after the accident, injured was admitted in the hospital at Bilaspur, he suffered grievous injuries on his leg and after the accident, he might have taken bed rest and thereafter report was lodged. Hence, lodging of FIR with some delay cannot be treated as inordinate and unexplained delay. In case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and other, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of delay in lodging of FIR in a motor vehicular accident cases, has held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant’s case in genuine cases. Para-17 of the said decision is relevant and extracted below for ready reference:- ''17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we 7 cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.” 12. The police after completion of investigation submitted final report, which is Ex.P-7. In FIR and final report there is specific mention that driver i.e. respondent No.1 herein, drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused accident in which deceased suffered injuries on his right leg. Report is lodged by none other than Aartidas himself. 13. In Para-18 of the reply to claim application, driver and owner of offending vehicle have infact denied the accident from the offending vehicle. They have not accepted the fact of accident, denied rash and negligence on the part of driver, which shows that the driver and owner of offending vehicle have not approached the Court with clean hands and tried to suppress the material facts. There is no material available in record to suggest that the owner and driver of offending vehicle against lodging of FIR have made any complaint to higher authorities alleging their false implication. 14. Narmada Prasad Tamrakar (AW-4), an eyewitness of accident, has deposed that on the date of accident, after 8 purchasing a new motorcycle, he was returning from Bilaspur to his village Khamariya. When he reached near Sakri Bus Stand, the offending vehicle, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Aartidas from backside as a result Aartidas suffered injuries and his right leg was fractured. In the cross-examination this witness stuck to her version in the examination-in-chief. 15.