1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 252 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 31.1.2026 1 - Rangnath S/o Late Janakram Kashyap, Aged About 70 Years Cast- Kurmi, R/o Fertilizer Basti Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Revenue And Civil- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Janki Bai W/o Rangnath Kashyap, Aged About 65 Years Cast- Kurmi, R/o Fertilizer Basti Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Revenue And Civil- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kamal Prasad S/o Janakram Kashyap, Aged About 22 Years R/o Fertilizer Basti Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Revenue And Civil- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Janak Ram S/o Sitaram, Aged About 34 Years R/o Fertilizer Basti Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Revenue And Civil- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.8.2016 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.), in Accident Claim Case No. 01/2014 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 15.08.2012, the deceased, Damarudhar, was returning after attending the Independence Day programme from NTPC as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.12/L-1869, and while returning, when the motorcycle reached near Shiv Petrol Pump, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No. 01, it dashed against an unknown truck, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, and below the ear, and died on the spot. The respondent Nos. 01 and 02 denied all the allegations, including the factum of respondent No. 01 driving the motorcycle, and further pleaded that the said motorcycle was duly insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Commercial Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, vide 3 policy No. 192404/31/2012/3271 valid from 21.09.2011 to 20.09.2012, but the applicants deliberately did not implead the insurer as a party, and also contended that the accident occurred due to an unknown vehicle which could not be traced by the police, despite registration of an offence in relation to the death of the deceased. On the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence of the parties, heard their submissions, and ultimately passed the impugned award without granting any relief to the claimants, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even in cases involving the death of a person due to an unknown vehicle, the claimant is not remediless, as compensation can be sought either from the insurer of the deceased’s own vehicle where the accident involved another unidentified vehicle and the deceased was not solely responsible for rash and negligent driving, or under the statutory Motor Vehicle Accident Fund in cases of hit-and-run accidents. It is contended that, in the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in holding that no compensation could be awarded merely on the ground that the offending vehicle was an unknown vehicle, overlooking the statutory scheme and settled legal position governing such claims. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in concluding that the claimants were not dependent upon the 4 deceased, Damarudhar, and therefore not entitled to compensation, as such a finding is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel further assails the finding of the Tribunal holding that the claimants are not the parents of the deceased Damarudhar, submitting that the said conclusion is wholly erroneous, perverse, and unsustainable in law, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No. 943/2019 on 22.8.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while not disputing the occurrence of the accident, has submitted that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the eyewitness NAW-1, clearly establishes that the accident did not occur due to any rash or negligent act on the part of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. It is contended that the accident was in fact caused due to the rash and negligent driving of another motorcycle, whose driver suddenly and carelessly maneuvered the vehicle, as a result of which the Hywa vehicle was compelled to dash against the vehicle in which the deceased was seated. Consequently, the deceased fell down on the road and, thereafter, was run over and crushed by the Hywa, leading to his unfortunate death, and thus the liability cannot be fastened upon the respondents on the ground of negligence attributable to the deceased or the motorcycle in question. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Arti Devi & others vs. Jagatpal @ Jogo and others, 2016 SCC Online Chh 2321, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- “3. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have made proper enquiry by directing all the respondents as also to the concerned Police Station to produce before the Court the complete records including case diary to find out the truth and the involvement of the vehicle in the accident but, the power, though available under Rule 226 of the Rules of 1994. was not invoked, resulting in grave injustice to the claimants, as they are deprived of compensation, despite evidence in the form of postmortem report and oral evidence proving that the husband of the appellant No. 1 died in the road accident. Reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of Smt. Gulabi Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Jain. 8. It is thus clear that in the present case, the Tribunal has not made proper enquiry and has not invoked its power as provided under Rule 226 of the Rules of 1994 to call for the relevant records of the criminal case i.e. case diary and charge sheet in order to collect information with regard to fact of the criminal case instituted under Crime No. 181/2004 registered at Police Station Jashpur.” 6 7. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Shanti Bai vs. Daneshwar Singh Raghuvanshi & others, 2020 SCC Online Chh 604, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- “18. Learned Claims Tribunal has further not conducted an enquiry as provided under Section 168 of the M.V. Act and Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. Taking into consideration the entire material available on record as well as looking to the object of M.V. Act and the provisions made thereunder, learned Claims Tribunal could have called eyewitness Bholaram for examination before the Claims Tribunal, in which, it failed.” 8. From a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the material aspect that even in cases of hit and run, statutory provisions exist for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, and that in the present matter, on the basis of the statements of the driver and the eye- witness, the claimants were otherwise entitled to be considered for compensation. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim primarily on the ground that the claimants failed to establish their relationship with the deceased as his parents, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not founded upon any cogent or reliable evidence. Even assuming that the documentary evidence produced was insufficient, the Tribunal ought to have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the claimants to file 7 additional relevant documents, or in the alternative, should have exercised its powers to call for such documents from the concerned authorities by taking recourse to Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, which has admittedly not been adverted to or applied. In view of these lapses, and considering both the factual matrix of the case and the grounds on which compensation was denied, this Court is of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Tribunal with a direction to grant proper opportunity to the claimants to produce relevant documents establishing their relationship with the deceased, and thereafter to reconsider the claim afresh, including the aspect of entitlement to compensation in a hit and run case by taking due note of the provisions relating to the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. 9. As the compensation is not computed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the matter is remanded back to the concerned Claims Tribunal. 10.Parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 9th February, 2026. 11. The learned Claims Tribunal should take appropriate steps while collecting relevant documents as per Rule 226 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules and if necessary take evidence of the concerned parties and to pass appropriate award in accordance with law. 8 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Record of the Claim case be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.12.2025 31.1.2026 - 31.1.2026 Raghu Jat