1 CGHC010401122018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1999 of 2018 1 - Smt. R. Kalyani Widow Of Late R. Shashibhushan Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Railway Colony, Quarter No. 23, D. Pararas Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At Khemchand House, Near Sahu Aata Chakki, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. R. Chaitanya D/o Late R. Shashibhushan Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian I. E. Mother Smt. R. Kalyani (Appellant No. 1). R/o Ward No. 01, Railway Colony, Quarter No. 23, D. Pararas Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At Khemchand House, Near Sahu Aata Chakki, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Bedram Rawate S/o Shri Romanlal Rawate R/o O. B. C. Office, Qtr. No. 120, Wrs Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Driver Of Hero Pason Pro. Mo. C. No. C. G. 24/4003 2 - National Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, In Front Of SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.14 10:47:59 +0530 2 Rajbandha Ground G. E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Insurer Of Hero Pason Pro. Mo. C. No. C. G. 24/4003 3 - R. Ramnadham Rao S/o Late R. Appal Swami Aged About 80 Years R/o Qtr. No. A-19, Ward No. 16, Sikola Basti, Jayanti Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. R. Laxmi W/o Shri R. Ramnadham Rao Aged About 75 Years R/o Qtr. No. A-19, Ward No. 16, Sikola Basti, Jayanti Nagar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (12.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"] has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, challenging the impugned award dated 03.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 802/2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the Claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for death of R. Shashibhushan, who was aged about 40 years and died in a road accident which occurred on 14.12.2015. 2. The Gist of the Claims is that on 14.12.2015 at about 6:00 AM. The deceased, R. Shashibhushan, aged about 40 years, was pillion riding on motorcycle No. CG-24/4003 driven by 3 Bedram Rawate/respondent No.1. Due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 near Village Danganiya Chowk, Main Road, PS Gundardehi, Dist. Balod, the motorcycle collided with an unknown vehicle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. FIR was registered after 26 days of the accident and Crime No. 14/16 was registered at PS Gundardehi. After investigation, the police filed a "khatma" final report holding that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim under Section 166 of the Act. It is submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased was a pillion rider and thus a third party. The claimants have proved their case through AW-1 Smt. R. Kalyani. The finding that accident was caused by an unknown vehicle is perverse. The claim ought to be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/National Insurance Company Limited submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the burden to prove negligence lies squarely upon the claimants. In the present case, the claimants themselves filed documents showing that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle. The police after investigation filed a khatma report and no negligence was attributed to respondent No.1. AW-1 Smt. R. Kalyani in her 4 cross-examination has admitted that she did not see the accident and is deposing on the basis of what others told her. No eyewitness was examined. The claimants cannot be allowed to take a stand contrary to the facts stated in FIR and other police documents relied upon by them. In absence of proof of negligence, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The impugned award is just and proper and calls for no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the impugned award and the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The core issue involved is whether the claimants have been able to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of respondent No.1/driver of motorcycle No. CG- 24/4003 as required under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 7. On perusal of the impugned award, it is found that the learned Tribunal has specifically recorded in Para 16 that from the documents filed by the claimants it is evident that the accidental vehicle was an unknown vehicle and the claim was filed against motorcycle No. CG-24/4003. Bedram Rawate, driver of motorcycle No. CG-24/4003, was examined before the Tribunal. He specifically stated that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle and denied that it occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has further observed in Para 22 that from the evidence on record it is clear that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bedram/respondent No.1, but was caused by an unknown 5 vehicle. Since the identity of the driver and owner of the said unknown vehicle could not be ascertained, the police filed a "khatma" report after investigation. 8. The Tribunal has also noted in Paras 18 & 19 that AW-1 Smt. R. Kalyani admitted in cross-examination that she did not see the accident and that there is no mention in the police documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 that the accident was caused due to negligence of the motorcycle driver. The Tribunal has further held that the claimants cannot dispute the contents of the documents filed by them. It is well settled that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden to prove negligence is on the claimants. In the instant case, the claimants have failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. On the contrary, their own documents show that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by Respondent No.1 and consequently rejected the claim under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. Thus, no interference is warranted. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham