1 2025:CGHC:45104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 704 of 2019 1 - Nemarti @ Nemsati S/o Bhagirathi Dhritlahre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Telisatti, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari {C.G.} (Driver Of The Vehicle - Tractor Reg. No. C.G. 05/B/1626, Trolley No. CG 05/B/1578) 2 - Bhagirathi S/o Late Bisahu Ram Dhritalahre Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Telisatti, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari {C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle - Tractor Reg. No. C.G. 05/B/1626, Trolley No. CG 05/B/1578) --- Appellants versus Jagendra Dahariya S/o Gangaram Dahariya R/o Village Kandel,(Nawagaon) Police Station Arjuni Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari {C.G.} --- Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellants : Ms. Debilina Maity, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent : None present, though served S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board 03/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellants / Owner and Driver assailing legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned award dated 2 13.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) {for short, ‘Claims Tribunal’ } in Claim Case No. 147 of 2017. 2. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,61,649/- in favour of respondent/ claimant as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 07.01.2017 due to rash & negligent driving of Tractor bearing Registration No. C.G.05/B/1626 and Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 05/B/1578 (offending vehicle) by its driver / respondent No.1. The Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Respondent /claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.29,60,000 pleading inter alia that on 07.01.2017 at around 7 O’ clock in the evening when the respondent/injured/claimant was going to his native village Navagaon(Kandel) after filling petrol from petrol on his bike and when he reached near Peepar Chedi Kandel Mod near the bridge at that time, by rash and negligent driving the driver of the offending vehicle dashed the injured from in front, due to which, the injured sustained severe injuries on his left leg, back and other parts of the body. Thereafter the injured was taken to the hospital at Dhamtari and thereafter looking to the grievous injuries he referred to Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. Due to the said accident the injured got permanent disability. The said accident was reported at Police Station Arjuni and the offence to this accident was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the avermants made in the claim petition stating inter 3 alia that alleged accident has not occurred by the offending vehicle, rather on the date and time of the accident, the said vehicle was parked in the workshop for repairing due to technical fault. Further, on the report of respondent/claimant, in a case registered against respondent No. 1, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has acquitted him of the alleged ofence. Thus, the accident has not occurred with the offending vehicle. In such a situation, appellants are not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as for issues, decided those issues in favour of respondent/claimant and against the Owner and Driver holding them to liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/driver-cum-owner vehemently argued that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle Tractor was sent for repairing in motor garage, and thereafter, the incident had occurred and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimant, thus, the Tribunal has erred in saddling liability of payment of compensation upon the appellants, which is liable to be set aside. 8. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the documents available on record. 10. As per deposition of Nemdas Sahu, vehicle Mechanic (PW-2) on 7th of January, 2017, at 4 O’ clock, Bhagirath, owner of the offending vehicle, brought his tractor bearing registration No. CG 05/B./1626 to Motor Garage for repair and servicing. After repairing and servicing the tractor, 4 he provided receipt for the repair expenses vide Ex. D-1. In cross- examination, this witness had admitted that his Garage is not registered with the authority concerned. He has also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not bring the bill book (Ex. D-1) with him. This witness has also admitted that in the receipt (Ex. D-1), registration number of vehicle was not recorded. Thus, from the perusal of overall evidence of Mechanic(PW02), it is not established that on the date of incident vehicle was brought in his Motor Garage for repairing & servicing. Further, from the perusal of the record, it is apparent that one criminal case was also registered against driver of the offending vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari relating the alleged motor accident and as per criminal case papers and pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that at the time of accident, offending vehicle Tractor was being driven by respondent No. 1/driver. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award warranting interference of this Court. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput,) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.18 18:08:31 +0530