1 2025:CGHC:50637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 782 of 2017 1 - Ajay Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Selud, Police Station- Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pusauram Deshlahre (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-10-2025 1.1 - Smt. Rekhabai Deshlahre W/o Late Pusauram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Kanakot, P.S.- Ranchirai, Tahsil- Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Prakash Deshlahre S/o Late Pusauram Deshlahre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Kanakot, P.S.- Ranchirai, Tahsil- Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shambhu Dayal S/o Benuram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Selud, Police Station- Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch No. 1, Bhutani Complex, G. E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 3/2025, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 3/2025 is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the cause title during the course of the day. 4. This is owner’s appeal against the award dated 9.2.2017 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District – Durg (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 28/2014. 5. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1, who is also the claimant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 25,10,000/- from the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 for injuries sustained in a road accident. According to the claimant, on September 23, 3 2016, while he and Ajay Rajput were returning from Village Tiloda to Village Kanakot on motorcycle No. C.G.-07-AB-6298, near Gudhiyari mines, they were hit by a JCB bearing registration No. C.E-07-NA-1143, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2. As a result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries to his hand, mouth, teeth, and other parts of his body and received treatment at District Hospital, Patan, Government Hospital, Durg, and Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as an ash brick contractor, earning Rs. 15,000 per month. After receiving notice, the appellant filed a written statement denying the claim, stating that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent insurance company and that respondent No. 2 held a valid driving license. The appellant also contended that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case, as evidenced by the FIR and case diary statements. However, by the impugned award dated February 9, 2017, the learned Claims Tribunal, without properly appreciating the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 64,650/- in favor of the claimant and held the appellant liable, thereby exonerating the insurance company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is contrary to fact, law, and evidence on 4 record and is therefore liable to be set aside. It was argued that the Claims Tribunal erred in absolving the respondent insurance company of liability and wrongfully fastened it upon the appellant. The Tribunal’s finding that respondent no. 2 did not hold a valid driving license for the J.C.B. was perverse and erroneous, as the driver possessed a valid license covering light motor vehicles, including the J.C.B. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant himself collided with the J.C.B. while it was turning, indicating that the respondent no. 2 was not driving rashly or negligently. Additionally, the Tribunal overlooked that the laden weight of the J.C.B. does not exceed that of a heavy or transport vehicle, which has implications on the liability and applicable insurance. Hence, the award is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the Claims Tribunal has duly considered the evidence on record, including the claimant's injuries, the circumstances of the accident, and the validity of the driver's license, and rightly awarded compensation to the claimant while holding the appellant liable. The appellant's contentions 5 regarding the driver’s license validity and negligence have been properly examined and rejected based on the facts, and the Tribunal's findings do not warrant interference. Consequently, there is no sufficient ground to overturn the impugned award, and the claim for compensation stands upheld. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the owner is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat