Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 90 of 2020 1 - Budhan Gupta S/o Kenwat Prasad Gupta Aged About 54 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Bandhan), Occupation- Tractor Transport, R/o Village Bachwar, Post And Police Station Shankargarh District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Palti Wd/o Lal Bahadur Aged About 50 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village Aasanpani, Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Kumar Sao S/o Suresh Sao Aged About 24 Years Occupation Business R/o Village Bachwar, Post And Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashpesh Kumar Agrawal Omprakash Agrawal Occupation Business R/o Village Bachwar, Post And Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Trolley Owner), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 343, 345, 347, 3 Aa. D. Floor Lal Ganga Shoping Mall Raipur, Police Station And Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 07/08/2025 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle (Tractor) challenging the award dated 19.11.2019 in Claim Case No. 121/2016 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of Rs. 3,97,600/- as compensation in a death case, fastened liability to satisfy amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle recording a finding that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.05.2008, when Kamal Sai (since deceased) on a Tractor bearing registration no. CG 15 A 5953 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) was returning from Village Lahsunpur to Village Bharatpur at that time, due to rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No. 1, the offending vehicle met with an accident and it fell off in a moat and turned turtle. In the said accident, Kamal Sai sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR bearing Crime No. 46/2008, P.S. Shankargarh, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj was registered against the Non-applicant No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the deceased was sitting on the Tractor engine whereas, at the time of accident, the deceased was traveling in Trolley attached with the Tractor and it was owned by some other person/Respondent No. 3 and therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. He also made a fair 3 submission before this court that in the accident, two persons died. Learned Claims Tribunal decided the claim filed by Smt. Anti Bai and other bearing Claim Case No. 169/2013 by allowing the claim application and had held the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the amount of compensation which was put to challenge by the Insuance Company i.e. the Respondent No. 4 by way of filing of an appeal bearing MA (C) No. 1186/2014 which was allowed in part in favour of the Insurance Company. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant and would submit that according to the evidence available before the learned Claims Tribunal in record of claim case, it is apparent that the deceased was traveling on the Tractor engine. He also submits that even if the submission of counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, that the deceased persons were traveling on the Tractor Trolley, then also, there was no sitting space in the Trolley. Hence, carrying persons in the Tractor Trolley will also be breach of policy conditions. He in support of his contention referred to the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in para 20 of the award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 6. Counsel for the appellant do not dispute that the deceased person was traveling in the Tractor or Trolley which is not the vehicle in which any person other than the driver can travel. His only ground is that as the deceased was traveling in the Tractor Trolley, therefore, the owner of the Tractor would not be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 7. Perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) would show that the 4 information about the accident happened on 08.05.2008 at about 10:00 A.M., report was lodged at about the same day i.e. about 11:30 A.M. in which, it is mentioned that the deceased along with others was traveling on the Tractor. The witness Smt. Palti (AW-1) in her examination-in-chief has also stated that her son was traveling on Tractor bearing registration no. CG 15 A 5953 and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries while traveling on Tractor. Though this witness in cross-examination has stated that she is not aware as to whether her son was sitting at the time of accident either on Tractor or on Trolley. Further, the owner of the offending Tractor (NAW-2/1) in his evidence have not made any specific statement that the deceased was traveling on the Trolley. However, in examination-in-chief, he has stated that he is not aware whether the deceased was sitting on his vehicle or not. No other evidence is brought on record by the owner of the Tractor/Appellant herein. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, looking to the nature of evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of the Appellant/Owner of the Tractor (NAW-2/1), I do not fin any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased met with an accident while traveling on the Tractor and fastened liability upon the Appellant/Owner of the offending Tractor. 9. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge