1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1035 of 2018 1 - Vishnwanath Patel S/o S/o Pawan Patel, Aged About 19 Years R/o Sitlapara, Bhilai, P. S. Bhilai, Sector 03, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. .............Driver., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pawan Kumar Patel, S/o S/o Lakhan Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Sitalapara, Bhilai, P. S. Bhilai, Sector 03, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. .................Owner., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Gurunam Singh S/o S/o Surjeet Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Gurudwara, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. .............Claimant., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Near Indian Coffee House, G. E. Road, Behind Banarsi Pan Thela, First Floor, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...............Insurer., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. This is an appeal by the owner & driver of the offending vehicle against the award dated 02.09.2008 passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.07 of 2008, in which compensation of Rs.3,27,720/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the owner & driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the appellants herein to pay the compensation. 2. The present appellants were remain ex-parte before the Tribunal and has not submitted any written submission/reply. 3. Appellant No. 1 is the driver and Appellant No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle, namely a Tata Ace bearing registration number CG 04 J 8752. Respondent No. 1 is the claimant, and Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. In brief, the claimant (Respondent No. 1) filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation amounting to 29,20,000/- under ₹ various heads. The claim arose out of an accident caused by the appellant’s vehicle which dashed the claimant’s vehicle, a Maruti 800. The claimant alleged that he is engaged in transportation business earning 8,000/- per month, and on account of rash and ₹ negligent driving by Appellant No. 1, an accident took place on 20.04.2007, causing grievous injury to his right knee. As a result, 3 the claimant became handicapped and was unable to continue his occupation effectively. According to the claimant, on 20.04.2007, while he was driving the Maruti 800 bearing registration number CG 04 D 3757 from Raipur towards Mahasamund along with one Balbir Singh, the offending Tata Ace Mini Truck bearing registration number CG 04 J 8752, driven by Appellant No. 1, came from the opposite direction on National Highway No. 217 near village Kharora and collided with the claimant’s vehicle. The collision caused severe injuries to the claimant’s right knee. The claimant contended that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by Appellant No. 1. The case was decided ex-parte against Appellants No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3, the insurer, appeared before the learned Tribunal denying its liability. The insurer contended that the driver, Appellant No. 1, did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. The insurer further submitted that the owner, driver, and insurer of the claimant’s vehicle were never made parties to the proceeding and hence, it disclaimed any liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, and upon consideration of the material on record, awarded compensation amounting to 3,27,720/-. However, the learned Tribunal held that as Appellant ₹ No. 1 was not in possession of a valid driving licence, the liability to pay compensation rests accordingly. Hence this appeal. 4 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is ex-facie contrary to the facts, applicable law, and the circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the entire matter has been decided ex- parte, without the participation of the Appellants, who were unaware of the pendency of the claim proceedings. No notice of the original proceedings was ever served upon them. The Appellants came to know about the matter only upon receipt of a notice in execution proceedings, dated for appearance on 05.01.2018. A copy of the said notice is annexed as Annexure A/2. Consequently, the Appellants were denied the opportunity to contest the claim or present their version, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice and violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Learned Tribunal erroneously drew adverse inferences without any pleading or evidence to suggest that the vehicle involved was being used for commercial purposes. No such allegation or proof exists on record, and hence, no presumption could validly have been drawn. Moreover, Appellant No. 1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged incident, which remained undisputed and ought to have been duly considered while assessing liability. It is also submitted that the Learned Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the income of Respondent No. 1 (the claimant) on the higher side, without any cogent evidence or documentary proof. The proceedings further suffer from a 5 fundamental procedural defect, inasmuch as the owner, driver, and insurer of the vehicle (Maruti 800) were not impleaded as parties. The absence of necessary and proper parties vitiated the entire claim, which was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Lastly, the Appellants have already deposited a sum of 25,000/- before the Learned Tribunal to facilitate the filing of the ₹ present appeal. A copy of the bank draft is annexed as Annexure A/3. Therefore this appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellants may be exonerated from the liability. 5. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants submits that the impugned Award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. He goes on to submit that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just, fair, and adequate compensation under various heads and has instead granted a grossly inadequate amount, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellants. The Tribunal erred in assessing the right compensation at a mere. In light of the above, the appeal filed by the Owner is liable to be dismissed to ensure justice is done to the appellants/claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 - insurance company opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and claimants, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. In a motor accident claim case, what is 6 important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record, and submissions made by both parties, it is held that the learned Claims Tribunal has given due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. The appellant’s contention of error in appreciation of evidence and negligence is without merit. The impugned award is neither perverse nor illegal. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants - owner/driver is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena