1 2025:CGHC:32854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1560 of 2019 1 - Ramdhan S/o Gajadhar Aged About 30 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Basin, Tahsil Podiuproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Basruddin Ansari S/o Shumam Ansari, R/o Vikas Nagar Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh........ (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Yashoda Devi W/o Ram Kumar Dewangan R/o Magazine Raod Jangle Side, Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Sada Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Notices sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported to be served, however, there is no representation on their behalf. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 19/2018. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 13.11.2017, when the applicant i.e. Ramdhan was going towards Katghora on a motorcycle and reached near Ahiran River, Barbaspur, at that time, one Trailor bearing registration no. CG 12 AS 2644 (hereinafter referred to as offending truck), driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle of applicant Ramdhan and caused accident. In the said accident, the applicant Ramdhan suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment and due to the said motor accidental injuries, the applicant suffered permanent injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 360/2017, P.S. Katghora, District – Korba for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal by reading part of the evidence of the claimant and Maniram (AW-2) has dismissed the claim application recording a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as the offending trailor was being driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 slowly. There is ample evidence on record to show that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending trailor by the Non-Applicant No. 1. He also pointed out that the appellant/claimant was not the driver of the motorcycle, but the pillion rider, whereas, the other vehicle which dashed the motorcycle was the trailor coming from the opposite direction. 3 5. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of the counsel for the applicant/appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence available on record justified in passing the impugned award rejecting the claim of the appellant/claimant, recording a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle (trailor) and dismissing the claim. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 7. Claimants have filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein that when applicant was traveling on a motorcycle as pillion, offending vehicle (trailor) bearing registration no. CG 12 AS 2644 driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle. In the said accident, claimant/applicant suffered grievous injuries. The Non-applicant No. 1 denied the adverse pleadings made against him in the claim application and have further pleaded that the accident was a result of the negligence of the claimant himself. 8. The Non-applicant No. 3 also submitted reply to the claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that the accident was a result of negligence on the part of the claimant and the person traveling on the motorcycle. It is also pleaded that there was beach of policy conditions as on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving license. Claimant 4 has filed the copy of the F.I.R. as Ex. P/2. Perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) would show that the crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle (trailor). After investigation, the final report is also filed against the driver of the offending trailor 9. Claimant is examined as AW-1. In his evidence, he clearly stated that on the date of accident, when he was traveling along with Uma Shankar on motorcycle, the offending trailor driven rashly and negligently dashed their motorcycle. In cross-examination, it has come that at the time of accident, the motorcycle was being driven by the Uma Shankar and not by the claimant. Similar is the evidence of Maniram (AW-2) who is stated to be the eye-witness. From perusal of the documentary evidence and oral evidence on record, it is apparent that at the time of accident, motorcycle was being driven by Uma Shankar and not by the applicant/claimant. There is involvement of the other vehicle i.e. the Trailor driven by the Non-applicant No. 1. After the accident, report was lodged and after completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the Non-applicant No. 1/Driver of the offending Trailor. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending Trailor by Non-Applicant No. 1, in the opinion of this Court, is erroneous. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 has observed thus: “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more 5 wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 11.In view of the aforementioned facts and documentary and oral evidence available on record i.e. the charge-sheet submitted against the Non-applicant No. 2 i.e. after completion of investigation, the evidence of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting entire claim of the appellant/claimant by recording a finding that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending trailor by the Non-applicant No. 1, therefore, the said finding is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set- aside. 12. 12. As the learned Claims Tribunal has not computed the amount of compensation and therefore, I find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Claims Tribunal for computing the compensation 6 based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record and thereafter, to pass afresh award in accordance with law. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 18.08.2025 (Monday). 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey