1 2025:CGHC:13260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1399 of 2018 1 - Nandlal Marayee, S/o Shri Arjun Marayee, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Shankarpur, P. S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Arjun S/o Shri Nanhu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Shankarpur, P. S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar Paikra S/o Shri Jagsai Paikra, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Banshipur (Kodavaripara) Thana Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Offending Vehicle Driver. 2 - Samul S/o Late Lalan Singh Aged, About 40 Years R/o Village Banshipur (Kodavaripara) Thana Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Offending Vehicle Owner. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : None present, though served. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 20.03.2025 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants/ appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') against the impugned award dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Tribunal, Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No. 15/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal had rejected the claim of the appellants/claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.09.2017 at about 06.00 P.M. Shyam Sai/deceased was going to Songara Market through his bicycle for recharging of his mobile and at that time, the offending Motorcycle Bearing No. CG-15-CS-5573 coming towards Ambikapur being ridden by respondent No. 1/Dinesh Kumar Paikra in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycle of the Shyam Sai/deceased, as a result of which, he fell down from the bicycle and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Holly Cross Hospital, Ambikapur as his health was deteriorating, on 04.09.2017 he was referred to Mahadev Hospital, Bilaspur, but his condition did not improve and he was brought back to home on 26.09.2017 and he died at 4.00 P.M. The accident was reported to the Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur vide crime No. 194 of 2017 against the unknown person. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the accident, the deceased/Shyamsai, was taking care of himself and the claimants also by earning an income of Rs. 9,000/- per month by doing Rajmistri work. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,02,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the impugned award is bad-in-law as well as fact available on record, hence it is liable to be awarded fully. The learned Claims Tribunal failed 3 to see that the claimants have examined witnesses and have proved their case, therefore, entire claim ought to have been decreed in favour of the claimants and also the learned Claims Tribunal has committed gross illegality in rejecting the claim of the appellants/claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal has not properly considered the entire materials available on record and only on the technical grounds rejected the claim application of the appellants, which is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and has also failed to see that the accident was not occurred due to negligence of the deceased, it has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. So, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 7. It is vivid from record of learned Claims Tribunal that both the appellants/claimants filed application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation on this ground that on 03.09.2017 Shyamsai died due to reckless driving of respondent No. 1/ Dinesh Kumar Paikara. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that both claimants have failed to prove this fact deceased/Syamsai was died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Learned Claims Tribunal also found that FIR registered against the unknown person on 25.09.2017 for accident, which was occurred on 03.09.2017 and both witnesses admitted this fact that they are not the eye-witnesses of accident. The claimants/ 4 appellants have failed to prove this fact that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and they have also failed to prove that Motorcycle bearing Registeration No. CG-15-CS- 5573 was involved in this accident. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has also found that appellant No.1 was aged about 25 years and appellant No. 2 was aged about 55 years and they did not prove this fact that appellant No. 1 is adopted son of deceased/Shyamsai and they also did not prove this fact that they were dependent upon the deceased. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that claimants/appellants have failed to prove the accident and dependency upon the deceased, even though, in this regard they did not produce any document or evidence and thereby rejected the claim application as filed by the claimants/appellants. 10. Thus, findings recorded by learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, as such, the same does not want any interference by this Court. As such, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL