NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 592 of 2021 1. Itwaru Ram Korche S/o Dhaniram @ Dhirpal aged about 45 years R/o Kurri Shitalapara, Police Station Korar District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Poornima Korche W/o Itwaru Ram Korche aged about 43 years R/o Kurri Shitalapara, Police Station Korar District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Dharmendra Sahu S/o Piladas Sahu aged about 30 years R/o. Village Kabir Nagar Kota, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner), 2. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. 3rd Floor Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co.) ---- Respondents For Appellants : Shri Pravin Tulsyan Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Harsmandar Rastogi Advocate on behalf of Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board dated 01 .04.2026 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is arising out of award dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, Chhattisgarh in claim case No. 87/2019. By the impugned award against claim of Rs. 25,18,000/-, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the claimants holding that the involvement of the offending vehicle as 2 well as negligence of its driver is not established. 2. As per pleadings of the claim application, the appellants/claimants are the parents of deceased –Rajkumar Korche. On 09.08.2017 the deceased was going home on his motor cycle from his shop situated at village Kurri, the offending vehicle - Mini Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-LG-8198 owned and driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came there and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of this, he sustained multiple injuries which led to his death during treatment at Komaldev District Hospital. The matter was reported to the concerned police station and after investigation the charge-sheet was laid before the competent Court having jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 19 years, he was employed as a Driver at Thakur Transport, Bhanupratappur. His monthly income was pleaded as Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, aforesaid compensation was claimed. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.1/driver and owner and respondent No.2/insurance company. 3. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues against the appellants/claimants holding that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, rather it had taken place on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the accident was reported to the police on which, crime was registered at police station against the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1, which was sufficient to show negligence as well as involvement of the offending vehicle. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the principle settled by the Supreme Court wherein it has 3 been held that involvement of the vehicle is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, rather preponderance of probability would suffice to arrive at a particular conclusion. In this regard, he places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2819 and Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and anr., 2023 INSC 621. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 support the award and submits that the claim application has rightly been rejected and no interference with the order impugned is called for. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Learned Tribunal while passing the award has observed that there was nothing on record to show that the motorcycle ridden by the deceased at the relevant time was insured with respondent No. 2, nor its registered owner or the insurer was made the party. While attributing the negligence to the deceased, it has further observed that he was not taking to the left side of the road and thus he himself was responsible for the accident. While rejecting the claim application, learned Tribunal has held that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident remained un-established, and therefore the appellants/claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 8. Having gone through the material available on record, it gets fully established that after the accident the FIR was registered and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 – the driver of the offending vehicle. Perusal of the charge-sheet also goes to show that the offending vehicle 4 was seized by the police. The offending vehicle subsequently was given on Supurdginama. This apart, Itwaru Ram Korche (AW-1) has also stated that the deceased was having the driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Thus it is established that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. In the matter of Bimla Devi (supra) it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that while deciding the claim cases it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants, and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. This legal position has also been reaffirmed lately by the Supreme Court in Mathew Alexander (supra). In this view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the appellants/claimants is not justified and being so it is hereby struck down. 9. Now the factual scenario presented by the appellants/claimants regarding the income and the age of the deceased, and the legal position in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, makes this Court hold that the appellants/claimants must get the compensation for the death of their son. Accordingly, it computes the compensation in the following manner:- Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income 96,000 2. 40% future prospects 38,400 5 3. Total Annual Income (96,000 + 38,400) 1,34,400 4. Income after deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs. 1,34,400 / 2 = Rs. 67,200) 67,200 5. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier (Rs. 67,200 x18 = Rs. 12,09,600) 12,09,600 6. Funeral Expenses 15,000 7. Loss of Estate 15,000 8. Parental consortium to both claimants 80,000 Total Compensation 13,19,600 Sd/- 10. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. Respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit being made, Rs.6,50,000/- shall be invested in the name of each appellant in a Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.2 through cheque or bank transaction. 11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations on facts and figures, this appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge J./Ashish ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.15 14:37:39 +0530