1 / 3 2025:CGHC:41435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 290 of 2021 1. Smt. Aasmati @ Asmati W/o Late Sadhu Ram Baghel, Aged About 38 Years Caste Muriya 2. Prem Kumar S/o Late Sadhu Ram, Aged About 11 Years Caste Muriya (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asmati (Appellant No. 1) 3. Ku. Deepika D/o Late Sadhu Ram, Aged About 8 Years (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asmati (Appellant No. 1) 4. Ku. Tileshwari D/o Late Sadhu Ram Baghel, Aged About 4 Years Caste Muriya (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asmati (Appellant No. 1) 5. Gonchu Ram Baghel, S/o Late Mangadu, Aged About 60 Years Caste Muriya 6. Smt. Rambati W/o Gonchu, Aged About 58 Years Caste Muriya, All are R/o Village Kamanar, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellants/ Applicants-claimants versus 1. Harriram Bedvyas S/o Balram Vedvyas, Aged About 38 Years (Teacher), R/o. Government Higher Secondary School Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh --- Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 18/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed by appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the order dated PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 09.02.2021 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 199/2019, whereby application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 only on the ground that the claimants have earlier filed the claim application bearing Claim Case No. 18/2016 and it was settled before the Lok Adalat on 11.06.2016, however, fell into error in not considering the fact as pleaded in the claim application that subsequent claim application was filed against the death of Sadhuram Baghel who suffered injuries in the accident. He would further submit that earlier claim application was filed seeking compensation against the motor accidental injuries suffered by late Sadhuram Baghel. 3. Perused the impugned order passed by claims Tribunal and pleadings made in the application, appeal before this Court as also undisputed fact that claim application was filed on the ground that deceased Sadhuram Baghel suffered motor accidental injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.07.2015 of which claim application was filed on 23.11.2015 seeking compensation against the motor accidental injuries suffered by Sadhuram Baghel but during pendency of this claim application, in Lok Adalat held on 11.06.2016, claimant and the non-applicants mutually agreed to settle the claim at Rs. 3,50,000. The amount which was agreed upon between the parties was also deposited before the Claims Tribunal and it was withdrawn by claimants. After some time of the settlement and award by the Lok Adalat, injured claimant in earlier case died on 21.03.2017. Claimants/ appellants who are legal representatives of deceased Sadhuram have again filed an application under Section 166 on 31.07.2019 pleading therein that on account of motor 3 / 3 accidental injuries suffered by Sadhuram in an accident on 17.07.2015, he died on 21.03.2017 and they have lost their breadwinner. 4. Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings made in the application, objection raised by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal that second application arising out of same accident is not maintainable as it is hit by principles of res judicata, because claimant/injured in earlier claim application entered into the settlement before the Lok Adalat, withdrawn the amount of award so deposited by insurance company of Rs. 3,50,000, hence, second application is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the application. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous or suffered from any infirmity or illegality. 5. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal being sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn