1 2025:CGHC:19058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 139 of 2018 1 - Subhash Rajak S/o Gokul Rajak Aged About 19 Years R/o Bhanpuri Basti, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Kamalnarayan Dewangan S/o Gangaram Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhanpuri Basti, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (Owner) ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Kunju Sahu W/o Kamlesh Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Satya Kirana Stores, Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri Basti, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamlesh Sahu S/o Mansha Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Behind Satya Kirana Stores, Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri Basti, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondents : None Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.05.01 16:33:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (28.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 06.10.2017 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur of 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 622/2015 awarding compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the claimants for his irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, is that on 19.04.2015, under the jurisdiction of Bhakhara Police Station, between villages Semra and Silidih main road, driver/Appellant No.1 of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing Registration No. CG-04-FD-1600, while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently, he dropped the motorcycle in the pit, due to which Omkar Prasad Sahu @ Aakash, who was a pillion rider, was thrown out and fell down due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A report of the incident was lodged based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was 19 years, he was working in shop and was earning Rs. 8500/- per month. Due to said accident, there is an irreparable loss to the respondents/claimants. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,50,000/-. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record has awarded total compensation 3 of Rs.5,02,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the Owner and Driver to be exonerated from liability. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/driver-owner submits that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident happened due to the negligence and rashness of driver of the offending vehicle Subhash Rajak. The fact that the accident happened due to the collision with the truck which has been stated by their witness Manish Devangan, which the Tribunal has rejected and committed an error. Since, no negligence and rashness of the driver of the offending vehicle has been proved, therefore, they may be exonerated from liability. 6. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the driver Subhash Rajak and the vehicle owner Kamalnarayan Devangan have not been examined before the Tribunal, but on their behalf Manish Devangan, who was seated on the offending vehicle at the time of accident, has been examined. Manish Devangan has stated that when he was returning from Bhakhara 4 with the deceased Omkar Prasad Sahu alias Akash in the motorcycle driven by Subhash and had stopped near Semra Silidih turn, Omkar Prasad Sahu alias Akash died due to injuries sustained in the accident when a truck suddenly came and hit them. 9. Smt. Kunju Bai from the claimant side was examined who is not a witness of the scene but she has produced certified copies of charge-sheet as Exhibits P-1 to P-5. Anil Kumar Sahu, as a witness of the scene, has supported the case of the claimants and stated that when he was going to Dhamtari, he saw that there were 03 people riding on a motorcycle which its driver was driving very fast and due to a ditch in front, the motorcycle jumped due to which one person was thrown away, he had a head injury, he was taken to the hospital, he died later. 10. Although Anil Kumar Sahu has declared himself as a witness of the incident in the trial, but he is not a witness listed in the police charge-sheet. According to the police charge-sheet, the driver of the motorcycle, Subhash Rajak, was a minor. The vehicle involved was not insured. After investigation, the police has filed a charge-sheet against Subhash Rajak. Manish Devangan, who is a witness from owner and driver’s side, has admitted that he was riding the motorcycle but he did not give any information about the accident to the police. It is important to note that Manish Devangan, who is examined from the side of 5 the driver and the owner, has been described as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet (Exhibit P-1). According to the Panchnama of dead body (Exhibit P-2) he is also a witness of the Panchnama, in which he has not given any information anywhere that the accident happened due to a collision with a truck. The entire charge-sheet is against the minor driver Subhash, who was the driver of the motorcycle. In such a situation, if there was a collision with a truck, Manish Devangan could have given this information at the time of the post-mortem and could have also reported to the police, which he has not done. Rather, he is a witness to the police charge-sheet and according to the charge-sheet, the minor driver Subhash Rajak drove the offending vehicle motorcycle fast and carelessly and as a result the accident happened due to it jumping into the ditch. That fact is in favour of the claimants and against the driver and the owner, therefore, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal by not believing the statement of Manish Devangan does not require any interference. 11. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham