Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 205 of 2019 Jeewan Lal Rahi S/o Vedram Rahi Aged About 39 Years R/o- Tanod, P.S. Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant 1 - Santoshi Sahu W/o Late Dilkumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years 2 - Kumari Isha Sahu D/o Late Dilkumar Sahu Aged About 4 Years 3 - Kumari Manisha Sahu D/o Late Dilkumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years No.2 and 3 are Minors Through Its Natural Mother Santoshi Sahu 4 - Khilawan Sahu S/o Gopal Sahu Aged About 60 Years 5 - Fulbai Sahu W/o Khilawan Sahu Aged About 55 Years No.1 to 5 all are R/o- Village Mudpar P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Indal Jangdre S/o Lochhal Ram Jangdre Aged About 22 Years 7 - Anuj Jangdre S/o Lochhal Ram Jangdre Aged About 30 Years Both are R/o- Village Semariya P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Manager Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Simran Tower Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents MAC No. 446 of 2019 Jeewanlal Rahi S/o Vedram Rahi Aged About 39 Years R/o Tanod, P. S. Shivrinarayan District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Appellant 1 - Santoshi Sahu W/o Late Dilkumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.13 10:17:18 +0530 2 2 - Kumari Isha Sahu D/o Late Dilkumar Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Res. No. 1 both are R/o Village Mudpar, P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Indal Jangdre S/o Lochhal Ram Jangdre Aged About 22 Years 4 - Anuj Janjgde S/o Lochhal Ram Janjgde Aged About 30 Years No.3 and 4 both are R/o Village Semariya, P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Manager Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Simran Tower Pandri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 in MAC No.205 of 2019 and respondent No.1 & 2 in MAC No.446 of 2019 : None present. For Respondent No.6 & 7 in MAC No.205 of 2019 and respondents No. 4 & 5 in MAC No.446 of 2019 : Mr. Swapnil Keshari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.8 in MAC No.205 of 2019 and respondent No. 5 in MAC No.446 of 2019 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/07/2025 1. Since similar issue is involved for adjudication in both the appeals, therefore, they are decided by this common order. However, MAC No.205 of 2019 is taken as lead case and for the sake of brevity, the facts and status of the parties of MAC No. 205 are being referred to in this order for disposal of both the appeals. 2. Both the appeals are filed by appellant/owner of offending tractor under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 26.09.2018 and 27.09.2018, passed in Claim Case No.51 of 2017 & Claim Case No.52 3 of 2017, whereby the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- and Rs.70,000/- to the claimants in death and injury case respectively. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that a claim applications were filed by the applicants/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.31,58,000/- and Rs.8,45,000/- as against the death of Dil Kumar Sahu and on account of the injury suffered by Santoshi Sahu respectively pleading therein that on 23.01.2017, Dilkumar Sahu was traveling from his residence to Pamgarh on his motorcycle (No. CG/11/BC/8191) along with his wife, Santoshi Sahu, and daughter, Miss Isha Sahu at about 10:30 a.m., when they reached near Kutra turn, an one -rickshaw bearing No. CG/11/MB/8596, driven by Non-Applicant No.2 in rash and negligent manner, collided with their motorcycle. As a result, Dilkumar Sahu, along with his wife and daughter, were thrown off the motorcycle. Subsequently, a tractor- trolley bearing No.C.G.-11-AE-2661, driven recklessly and negligently by the Non-applicant No.1, which was following behind, ran over Dilkumar Sahu and his wife. As a result of said accident, Dilkumar Sahu suffered fatal injuries and died during treatment and Santoshi Sahu and Miss Isha Sahu suffered severe injuries over their body. 4. Non-applicant No.1 (driver of offending tractor) filed reply denying the averments made in the claim applications. It was pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case and it was the driver of offending auto who dashed the motor cycle of the deceased and ran over. 4 5. Non-applicants No.2 and 3 driver and owner of auto also filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that applicants are not entitled to get any compensation from these non-applicants. 6. Non-applicant No.4 insurer of auto also filed its reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that non- applicant No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending auto and it was being plied in breach of policy conditions. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed both the claim applications in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- and Rs.70,000/- and fastened liability upon non- applicant No.1/driver of offending tractor and non-applicant No.2 & 3/driver and owner of offending auto to the extent of 80% and 20% respectively, exonerating the insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the appeals are filed challenging the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon appellant/non-applicant No.1/owner of tractor trolley to the extent of 80% of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. He submits that in evidence it has come that motor cyclist (deceased) was hit by auto driven by non-applicant No.2, due to which, motorcyclist and pillion fell down and thereafter the tractor which is coming from behind ran over the deceased and other occupants of the motor cycle. In the above facts of the case, when the gross negligence in causing accident is upon non-applicant No.2, 5 driver of offending auto, learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the non-applicant No.2 to the extent of 20% only, which is erroneous. The driver of auto, who initially dashed the motor cycle is the main assailant and the act of non-applicant No.1 of causing the accident is a consequential of the act of the non-applicant No.2, therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles would be equal i.e. 50% on each of the driver. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No.6 & 7/non-applicant No.2 & 3, driver and owner of offending auto would submit that specific defence was taken by them that motor cycle was not dashed with the auto, however, deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, lost control and became imbalanced because of over loading as three persons were traveling on the motorcycle exceeding its seating capacity, and fell down. Thereafter, tractor-trolley driven by the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 ran over the deceased. He also contended that auto was insured with non-applicant No.4/respondent No.8, Insurance Company and therefore, the liability if any to satisfy the amount of compensation imposed upon respondents No.6 & 7 would be of respondent No.8, the insurer of the auto. He also submits that respondents No.6 & 7/non- applicant No.2 & 3, driver and owner of offending auto have also filed cross-objection challenging the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal of fastening lability upon them to the extent of 20%. 10. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.8/Insurance Company would submit that from the evidence available on record it is appearing that initially motor cycle was dashed by auto, upon which, the motor cyclist fell down and theater tractor ran over him. He also 6 contended that on the date of accident, driver of auto riksha/, respondent No.6 was not possessing valid and effective driving license, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording the finding that the auto riksha was being driven in breach of policy conditions and exonerated the insurance company from indemnifying the insured. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 12. So far as the first grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant/non- applicant No.1 that motor cycle was initially dashed by auto riksha, driven by respondent No.6 and owned by respondent No.7 is concerned, claimants in the claim application are wife, children and parents of the deceased. At the time of accident, claimant No.1, widow was also accompanied the deceased on the same motor cycle. In the pleadings it has been very specifically pleaded that auto riksha bearing No. C.G.-11-MB-8596, driven by non-applicant No.2 rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle due to which they fell down and the tractor trolley which is coming from behind ran over the deceased Dilkumar Sahu. Claimant have examined two witnesses to prove the pleadings made in the claim application. Claimant No.1, Santoshi Sahu as (A.W.-1) and Nakul Kumar Khute as (A.W.-2), both the witnesses have been examined as eye-witnesses to the accident. Nakul Kumar Khute (A.W.-2) is an independent eye-witness. He is not in any manner related to the deceased or claimants. In his evidence, he clearly stated that while he was going to Janjgir State Bank from Pamgarh on his motor cycle, one auto of black colour bearing No. 7 C.G.11-MB 8596 was being driven by its driver rashly, dashed the motor cycle of Dil Kumar Sahu from front side, due to which the persons travelling on motor cycle fell down on the road and the tractor attached with the trolley coming from their behind ran over Dil Kumar Sahu and his wife. In cross-examination, no question has been put to him that he has not witnessed the accident. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 and 3, he denied the suggestion that he in collusion with the claimants is giving false evidence. During his cross-examination, nothing adverse has come that would cast doubt upon the credibility of this witness and the happening of accident, as pleaded in the claim application and stated by the witnesses before the Claims Tribunal. The claimants have also placed on record the copy of FIR (Ex.A-2) in which date of accident is mentioned as 23.01.2017 at about 10.30 AM and the date and time of information in the police station is mentioned as 23.01.2017 at about 15.15 o’clock i.e. 3.15 PM on the same day. FIR was lodged by Dilesh Kumar and the allegation is against unknown auto driver and unknown tractor driver, however, in the FIR there is mention of allegation that motor cycle was dashed from its front side by auto upon which the driver and the occupants of motor cycle fell down and the tractor ran over them. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the evidence available on record it is crystal clear that initially auto driven by respondent No.6/non-applicant No.2 owned by respondent No.7/non- applicant No.3 dashed the motor cycle, which makes the driver of motor cycle and its occupants fell on the road. It is the auto driver who due to his rash and negligent act caused accident, due to which motorcyclist and its occupants fell down on the road and thereafter the 8 tractor which is coming from behind ran over them. In the facts of the case, the negligence on the part of the driver of auto i.e. respondent No.6/non-applicant No.2 cannot be put on lower pedestal, however, the negligence of the driver of the both offending vehicle would be equal. The learned Claims Tribunal, while considering the apportionment of negligence between the drivers of both vehicles, framed an issue regarding the initial accident caused by the auto and the subsequent incident wherein the tractor ran over the deceased and Claimant No.1. However, the Tribunal fastened 80% liability solely upon the appellant/driver of tractor on the ground that the tractor ran over the deceased and Claimant No.1. The learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering that initial act of causing accident was upon the auto driver i.e. respondent No.6 and the non-applicant No.1/appellant herein thereafter tractor caused the accident to the persons, who suddenly fell down from the motor cycle on the road. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, there shall be negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles to the extent of 50%, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant/driver of the tractor is negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the auto to the extent of 20% is not sustainable and it is hereby set-aside. It is ordered that driver of the both the vehicles i.e. non-applicant No.1 and 2 equally contributed to the accident and driver and owner of both the vehicles will be liable for payment of compensation to the extent of 50% each. 14. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7 that auto was insured on the date of accident, learned 9 Claims Tribunal in para 17 and 18 has recorded a finding that on the date of accident, offending auto was being driven by respondent No.7 without there being valid and effective driving license and further the driver of auto/non-applicant No.2 Indal Kumar Jangade, who examined before the Claims Tribunal in para 7 of his cross-examination admitted that on the date of accident, he was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the auto, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error exonerating the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured. 15. For the forgoing discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/non- applicant No.1, driver and owner of offending tractor is allowed in part and the cross appeal filed by the respondent No.6 & 7/Non-applicant No.2 and 3, driver and owner of auto is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram