Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2287 of 2019 1 - Smt. Munga Awade W/o Chaman Lal Awade Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Lingadih, Police Station Arang , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chamman Lal Awade S/o Late Bisram Awade Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lingadih, Police Station Arang , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Tarjan Thakur S/o Lap Kumar Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Godpara Banskata, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...(Driver Of Motorcycle No. Cg-06, Gb-8411), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Dhanmothin Thakur W/o Tarjan Thakur Aged About 25 Years R/o Godpara Banskata , Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg-06, Gb-8411), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager , Divisional Office, Commercial Bhawan , Near Sai Mandir , Devendra Nagar Sai Mandir , Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Town And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. Cg-06, Gb-8411), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondents Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 24/07/2025 1. Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2016. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimants/appellant have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- on the ground that on 16.02.2015 when Anendra Kumar Awade (since deceased) was traveling on motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 06 GB 8411 along with one Tarjan Thakur as a pillion rider, Tarjan Thakur drove motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed with the culvert. In accident, Anendra Kumar Awade suffered grievous injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment, where, he succumbed to injuries during treatment. On the date of accident, deceased was working as Shiksha Karmi (Grade – III) and earing Rs. 22,000/- per month. 3. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Anendra Kumar Awade himself was driving the vehicle and met with an accident due to his own negligence. 4. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted reply denying the adverse pleadings made therein, except the admitted facts. It was further pleaded that the deceased was not possessed with valid and effective driving license and was not a third party and therefore, not 3 entitled for compensation. Deceased was driver of motorcycle, met with an accident of his own negligence. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, dismissed claim application recording a finding that the deceased while driving motorcycle met with an accident, due to his own negligence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the pleadings and evidence of the claimants that deceased was traveling on motorcycle as pillion. It further erred in disbelieving statement/evidence of the eye-witnesses Nohar Markande (AW – 3), who in his evidence before the Tribunal stated that the deceased was traveling on the motorcycle as pillion. He was traveling on his own motorcycle just behind the motorcycle on which, deceased was traveling. Finding recorded by the learned Claims tribunal is perverse to the evidence available on record. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would jointly oppose the submission made by counsel for appellants and would submit that after accident, report was lodged by Tarjan Thakur and in the F.I.R., there is clear mention that the motorcycle met with an accident while the deceased was driving it. Police registered F.I.R, and submitted final report after completion of investigation. Tarjan Thakur is examined as NAW-1, he in his evidence, made statement according to the pleadings made in the reply. Claims Tribunal considering entire evidence available on record have rightly disbelieved the version of claimants and evidence of Nohar Markande (AW – 3) which does not call for any interference. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 9. Perusal of record would show that witness Nohar Markande (AW – 3) is examined by claimants, stating him to be the eye-witnesses. In his evidence, he stated that motorcycle on which, deceased was traveling, overtook his motorcycle and after going to some distance, it met with with an accident. He further admitted that motorcycle on which, deceased was sitting was running on high speed. There was no sufficient light and he could not able to see distance of 100 meters through the headlight of the motorcycle. In the aforementioned facts of the case, evidence of Nohar Markande (AW – 3), it is appearing that he could not identify the persons driving motorcycle or sitting as pillion. In the facts of the case, where the place of accident is dark, there was no sufficient light, evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the deceased was a rider and not a pillion rider on the motorcycle as stated by Non-Applicant No. 1, one of the occupant of motorcycle. In the accident, there is no involvement of any other vehicle, but as per the pleadings and evidence brought on record, it is appearing that while driving the vehicle by its driver, it dashed with the culvert. 10. From the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence, it is apparent that the accident was due to negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle. Witness Tarjan Thakur (NAW-1) in his statement has clearly stated that at the time of accident, deceased was driving the vehicle and he was a pillion. The statement and evidence made by Tarjan Thakur (NAW-1) inspire confidence and therefore, the evidence of Tarjan Thakur (NAW-1) is found admissible. 5 11. For succeeding in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 proof of negligence on the part of others is sine qua non which is lacking in this case and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that accident was a result of negligence on the part of the deceased himself being driver of motorcycle, there is no involvement of any other motor vehicle and dismissed the claim application. The said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, this appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge