-1- 2025:CGHC:32747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 234 of 2024 1 - Chintaram Diwakar S/o Ramprasad Diwakar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Manpur, P.S. Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Chandravanshi, S/o Ghanshyam Chandravanshi, Aged About 35 Years R/o Silhati, P.S. Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgrarh At Present Ashtha Enclave, A-7, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pyarelal Yadav S/o Shri Lokai Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Yadavpara, Madadabri, Village And Post Rajpur Mouhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dukhani Yadav W/o Pyarelal Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Yadavpara, Madadabri, Village And Post Rajpur Mouhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Grurukripa Towers, 2njd Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Arjun Lal Singraoul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.07.2025 1) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, whereby the application raising preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the claim case was rejected. 2) The facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner No.1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-DC-2555, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed an electric pole. As a consequence, one Dhaneshwari came into contact with a hanging live electric wire and sustained injuries. She subsequently died on 20.08.2018. B. The claimants, who are the parents (mother and father) of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle, the driver, and the insurance company. The driver, owner, as well as the insurance company filed their respective replies to the claim case. C. The petitioner herein filed a preliminary objection before the learned Tribunal inter alia on the ground that the vehicle was not directly involved in the death of the deceased and that there was no proximate nexus between the accident and her death. The said application was opposed by the claimants. D. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 23.02.2024, rejected the -3- preliminary objection. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shrivastava, submitted that even the date of the accident is not mentioned in the FIR. He contended that the FIR as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC do not disclose any nexus between the alleged accident and the death of the deceased. He further submitted that a perusal of the FIR reveals that the matter was reported to the Electricity Department with a request to replace the electric pole and tighten the electric wires, but no steps were taken. Later, the deceased, while returning to her house, came into contact with a live wire and sustained fatal electrocution injuries. It was therefore contended that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. He urged that the order passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the objection raised by the petitioner may be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Arjun Lal Singhraoul opposed the petition and submitted that the electric pole was dashed by the offending vehicle, and this incident directly led to the death of the deceased. He submitted that had the electric pole not been hit by the vehicle, the deceased would not have come in contact with the live electric wire and suffered electrocution. He contended that all such grounds may be raised during the course of trial and that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the preliminary objection. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. -4- 5) Learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh supported the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7) From a perusal of the FIR, it appears that the electric pole was dashed by the offending vehicle, which resulted in the live electric wire hanging. The deceased came into contact with the live wire and sustained electric burn injuries. Therefore, it can safely be held that there is a direct nexus between the accident involving the vehicle and the death of the deceased. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law in rejecting the preliminary objection. The claim case filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is maintainable as the offending vehicle was involved in the accident, either directly or indirectly. 8) In view of the above discussion, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim