1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate Campus, In Front of v. 1 - Suresh S/o Biharilal Chandrakar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Menpura, Police
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2251 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate Campus, In Front of District Court, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Bus No. CG-03-4968). 2 - The Director General of Police Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Suresh S/o Biharilal Chandrakar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Menpura, Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). 2 - Chandrakumar S/o Late Manbodh Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years Head Constable No. 338, Rakshit Kendra Vahan Shakha, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shailesh Puria, P.L. : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 08 .0 4 .202 5 ) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.09 16:32:31 +0530 2 1. This is the Owner’ appeal against the award dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.151/2016 whereby a compensation of Rs. 10,60,034/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of claimant. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 34,82,000/- claimed by the claimant/respondent No.1 herein by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his injuries, driver of the bus bearing registration No. CG-03-4968 in the motor accident on 23.12.2014; the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,60,034/- in favour of the claimant. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, mainly, looking to the evidence of injured/Suresh Chandrakar (AW- 1), medico legal certificate (Ex.A-7), Certificate (Ex.A-8) and disability certificate (Ex.A-44) to the extent of 65% and found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. CG-03- 4968 by its driver – Chandrakumar, i.e. respondent No.2 herein; Suresh Chandrakar sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident; the appellants are held liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of the claimant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the alleged offending vehicle i.e. bus is not involved in the said accident as the learned claims tribunal has failed to appreciate the material fact that the accident was happened due to composite negligence of the respondents and therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. He further submits that in this case, it is also not proved that the leg 3 of the claimant has been amputated due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. He also submits that the tribunal gave an erroneous finding by making the appellants liable for payment of compensation without considering the fact that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the claimant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellants are entitled to exonerate to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent No.1 and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to none involvement of the alleged vehicle in the said accident is concerned, in this regard, claimant Suresh Chandrakar (AW-1) has stated in accordance with the facts mentioned in the application that on 23.12.2014 he was coming from Mainpura to Bilaspur on a motorcycle with his brother Nandkumar Chandrakar. As soon as they went down from the Uslapur over bridge and moved a little ahead, the driver of the offending bus, coming from behind, hit them along with the motorcycle by driving rashly and negligently and caused the accident. This witness denied the suggestion given by the appellants herein that he himself met with an accident due to loss of control over his motorcycle, and this witness remained unrebutted in cross-examination. Furthermore, Chandrakumar Jaiswal (NAW-1), respondent No. 2 herein, driver of offending vehicle has stated that the vehicle driven by him has not caused any accident to the claimant, in fact 4 the claimant was driving his motorcycle negligently and due to this he was not able to control his motorcycle, due to which he got injured after falling, the claimant has lodged a false report against him. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he has not made any written complaint to his higher officer regarding the filing of a false report against him, nor has he presented any complaint in any court, whereas this witness has admitted that a criminal case is pending against him in the court in connection with the same accident. Apart from this, there is no such fact on record that the claimant has lodged a false report of accident against respondent No.2 herein or that the accident happened due to any mistake or negligence on the part of the claimant. In such a situation, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is not found acceptable and the same is hereby rejected. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is not proved in this case that the leg of the injured/claimant was amputated due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, in this regard, considering the statement of claimant Suresh Chandrakar (AW-1), who has stated that in the accident he had suffered serious injuries in his left leg near the calf, left elbow and other parts of the body, for which he got treatment while being admitted in Sanjivani Hospital and Apollo Hospital, Bialspur, during the treatment in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur his left leg was amputated. In support of the above evidence, Medicolegal Certificate (Ex.A-7), Certificate (Ex.A-8 and disability certificate (Ex.A-44) and discharge summary of Apollo Hospital have been presented and Dr. Gaurishankar Asati (AW-3) has stated that the claimant had serious injuries in his left leg and the lower 5 part was not in a condition to be saved, the claimant was discharged on 30.12.2014 after treatment. Thus, it is clear that the claimant had suffered serious injuries in the accident and his left leg was amputated, due to which he sustained a permanent disability to the extent of 65%. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant is also not found acceptable. 9.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu