Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1896 of 2018 Merry Gress Barwa W/o Rajesh Barwa, Aged About 45 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Diet Colony Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..............(Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - Aditya Pal Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 43 Years Caste Tanwar, R/o Village Khirti, Police Station Chowki Morga, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Chanda Tanwar W/o Aditya Pal Singh, Aged About 38 Years Caste Tanwar, R/o Village Khirti, Police Station Chowki Morga, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amar Singh Porte S/o Ramsundar Porte, R/o Village Pasan, Police Station Pasan, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh.............(Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20.06.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') has been filed by the appellant/owner challenging the impugned award dated 28.07.2018 in Claim Case No. 29/2016 passed by the learned Additional Tribunal of 2 Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(Katghora) District Korba (C.G.), whereby Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part, in favor of respondent no. 1 and 2/claimants and calculated total compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- (Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are such that respondent no. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Krishna Madav who was aged about 04 years at the time of incident. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stating therein that on 15.12.2015 their son/deceased was playing in the streets near their home. At the relevant point of time, a marshal jeep bearing registration no. CG 10 BA 7515 was parked near their house by the driver/respondent no. 3. Allegation of the parents of the deceased is such that the driver of the said marshal jeep without paying attention and without looking ahead and behind of the marshal jeep drove the said deep in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased was ruthlessly dashed and consequently received unsustainable injuries, and while taking him to the hospital he was succumbed to death. The claimants stated that the deceased was about 04 years at the time of accident and sought compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- (Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only). 3 3.Further development in the case was such that, on application being filed by the claimants, the owner/appellant and driver/respondent no. 3 filed their written statement wherein the owner of the offending vehicle vehemently contended that at the time of the incident the vehicle involved was not his vehicle, as he has sold the same on 12.04.2013 to one Devsharan Singh for a considerable amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). However he also stated that Devsharan Singh took the responsibility of transferring the name of the vehicle in his name in RTO. But as soon the notice regarding the case was issued to him, he denied his promise to do the same. Hence if any liability arises out of the said claim petition, then he should not be made liable for it. On the other hand driver of the said vehicle in question, in his written statement contended that he was not in the vehicle when the accident took place. He did not took the charge of the accident so caused and pleaded to reject the claim petition of the claimants. 4. Upon appreciations, learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as three issues and after assessment of evidence and material placed before it, held that the deceased Krishna Madav died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question, hence the appeal was allowed in parts in favour of the claimants and Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune 4 of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and fastened the liability upon the owner and driver of the marshal jeep bearing registration no. CG 10 BA 7515, as the the vehicle involved was not insured, to pay the awarded compensation jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is not liable for payment of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal as the evidence clearly shows that the said vehicle had already been sold to one Devsharan and on the day of incident, he was the actual owner of the vehicle in question. Hence the new owner of the vehicle Devsharan has taken the responsibility for transferring the name of vehicle. Therefore, if any liability has to be fastened, it has to be fastened to the subsequent purchaser who is Devsharan Singh. 6. He further submits that in the merg intimation no such details has been made by the claimants/respondent no. 1 and 2 in respect of the accident caused by the marshal jeep bearing registration no. CG 10 BA 7515. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 3/driver of the offending vehicle submits that from the evidence of the eye witness it is apparent that the deceased died due to accident caused by the offending vehicle. Tribunal after due considering 5 the entire facts and circumstances of the case, documentary as well as oral evidences came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused by the offending vehicle and thereby calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/-. The vehicle was not insured. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the available material placed before this court with utmost circumspection. 9. Notices were served to the claimants, however, no one appeared on behalf of claimants to represent them. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the legal position of the offending vehicle is well established and if the vehicle has been sold to some other person, the responsibility of proving the same is upon the owner of the vehicle and the same has to be intimated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the concerned RTO. However, on bare perusal of the records, it is clear that the information in respect of selling the vehicle in question has not been furnished to the concerned RTO. Therefore, this ground of the counsel for the appellant cannot be taken into consideration. 11.So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, which is in respect of the fact that no such 6 details have been made with respect to the accident caused in the merg intimation(Ex. P/4). It is clear that in the merg intimation no such details have been made by the claimants but that does not by itself satisfy how the accident happened and as to who has caused the accident, however, in the FIR( Ex. P/3) specific averments have been made relating to the accident which took place and it is also stated in the FIR that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent no. 3 by the Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No. CG 10 BA 7515. 12.Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after careful perusal of the documents available on record, this court finds no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 13.Accordingly, the instant MAC is hereby dismissed. 14.The record of the Tribunal along with copy of this order be sent back forthwith for the information and necessary action, if any. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Alfiza