1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 97 of 2024 1 - Digambar Gautam Son Of Tejal Gautam Aged About 45 Years R/o Beltiri Basahat, Dipka, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Suresh Yadav Son Of Puran Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o K.K. Enterprises, Pali Road, Dipka, Police Station - Dipka, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Smt. Puspa Singh Wife Of Vashudev Singh R/o. C/of Ashok Kumar Singh, Kashyad, B. Bag, Rajkishor Nagar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - United India Insuracne Co. Ltd, Through Divisional, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar on behalf of Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/08/2025 By this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) the appellants/claimants has called in question the validity and correctness of the award dated 09.11.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 67/2018 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, CG. By the impugned award, the 2 learned claims Tribunal has dismissed the application of the appellants/claimants filed under Section 166 of MV Act holding that the appellants could not prove the accident. 2. As per pleadings of the claim application, on 12.01.2017 at about 9 PM the appellants/claimants was walking from SECL Gevra, Gate No. 10 weighing machine at that time the respondent No. 1 - driver of the offending vehicle Tailor bearing registration No. CG 10 Z 3220 drove it rashly and negligently and dashed to the appellant, as a result he sustained injuries on his leg including fracture of his legs and other part of the body. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 14,40,000/- was claimed by the appellants/claimants. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the learned claims Tribunal. 3. The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement and in usual course denied the averments of the claim application and also denied the happening of the accident and also took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The learned Tribunal framed four issues on the basis of above broad pleadings. Issue No. 1 was with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1 / driver which was decided in negative against the appellants/claimants. Issue No. 2 is with regard to violation of the insurance policy by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner was decided in negative against the respondent No. 3 / insurance company. In issue No. 3 with regard to award of compensation was also decided in negative and ultimately in issue No. 4 the claim application of the appellants/claimants was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding with regard to issue No. 1 and Issue No. 3 is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Tribunal simply on the statement of the appellants/claimants that he slept and while he was trying to lift himself the accident has occurred and therefore, held that the driver of the offending vehicle could not be held liable to the accident which is contrary to the evidence on record. He submits that the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remanded back for 3 determination of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the impugned award and submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents on record. 6. From the perusal on records it appears that a report was lodged against the respondent No. 1 for commission of offence under Section 279 and 337 IPC. Of course the claimant has stated that he slipped and when he was trying to lift himself, the accident has occurred but itself does not indicate that the accident had occurred purely on the negligence of the appellant. The offending vehicle is a tailor and the driver of the offending vehicle is expected to be careful while driving of the tailor. 7. Further, in the matter of Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646, it has been held as under: 7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three judge Bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: “10. (ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. * * * (v)Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such sum-mary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.” 4 8. In light of the above judgments and discussion made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in issue No. 1 is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed the impugned award is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the same for determination of the amount of compensation which the appellant would be entitled to received. As issue No. 2 is with regard to violation of the insurance policy was not challenged by filing the cross objection by the respondent No. 3 / insurance company, the learned Tribunal would only decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant. 9. In view of above, the appeal is allowed and indicated above. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22.09.2025. The claims Tribunal thereafter would make all endeavors to decide the case within a reasonable period of time preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 10. The copy of this order alongwith the records shall be sent back to the learned Claims Tribunal for necessary compliance and information Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan