1 MAC No. 1092 of 2017 2025:CGHC:22691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1092 of 2017 1 - Krishna Kumar Chakradhari S/o Nanku Ram Chakradhari, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........Claimant. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vasudev Sahu S/o Shri Goverdhan Sahu, R/o Village Akoli Kala, Police Station Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Reistration No C. G. 04- E/0154, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt Karuna Tiwari, W/o Ramesh Tiwari, R/o Mahamaya Para, Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registratin No. C G 04- E- 0154 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Branch Manager, Through Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office No. 1, Jail Raod Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registratin No. C G 04- E- 0154, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 MAC No. 1092 of 2017 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 20.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in claim case No.271/2015 wherein the claimants were held not entitled for any amount of compensation accordingly the claim petition was dismissed. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, is that the on August 13, 2014, at around 12:30 AM, a tragic accident occurred when a mini bus driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 hit the appellant's bullock near the Paddy Collection Center bridge on the main road. The bullock sustained severe injuries to its four legs, with one leg's backside broken. Despite being shifted to the Cattle Hospital in Nayapara, Raipur, the bullock succumbed to its injuries on September 4, 2014. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, seeking compensation for the death of his bullock. However, the tribunal dismissed the claim after considering the evidence and contestation from the respondents, including the Oriental Insurance Company 3 MAC No. 1092 of 2017 Limited, which raised grounds of policy violation. The appellant has now approached the Court, appealing for enhancement of compensation. 3. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident itself had not been established and proved by cogent evidence. The Insurance Company (respondent No.3) also raised the issue of policy violation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant’s bullock was healthy and prompt for every work. He goes on to submit that death of bullock the appellant is facing loss of its agriculture work and he also spend a sum of Rs.20,000/- for its treatment and worth of the bullock is about Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is well established fact that the bullock was died in a motor accident dated 13.08.2014, the claims Tribunal passed an order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and should have been awarded the compensation on account of death of his bullock. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated 4 MAC No. 1092 of 2017 the evidence on record and rightly held that the occurrence of the accident was not proved. He further submits that the appellant failed to produce the only eye-witness, namely, Tej Kumar Chakradhari, to substantiate the accident. occurred on 13.08.2014, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the record, it is evident that AW-1, Krishna Kumar Chakradhari, the appellant and purported owner of the bullock and bullock cart, was not present at the time of the alleged accident. The person who was allegedly present during the incident was his younger brother, Tej Kumar Chakradhari. However, significantly, the said Tej Kumar Chakradhari was not examined before the Tribunal. Therefore, the statement of the only eyewitness, who could have confirmed the manner of the accident, is conspicuously absent. In such a situation, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish the factum of accident and consequent death of the bullock. As a consequence no award can be granted in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal. 5 MAC No. 1092 of 2017 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the occurrence of the accident has not been satisfactorily proved. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned award. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No Cost. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA