1 2025:CGHC:32101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1529 of 2018 1 - Manish Mishra S/o Mahesh Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Bazar Line Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg-08- B-1654), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi W/o Ravi Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sohpur, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tikeshwar S/o Late Ravi Yadav Aged About 3 Years (Minor ) Through Natural Guardian Mother Santoshi Yadav R/o Village Sohpur, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Baratu Ram S/o Bodhiram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sohpur, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Agasiya Bai W/o Baraturam Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sohpur, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vijay Kumar Sinha S/o Pratap Singh Sinha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Adejhar, Police Station Ambagrh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg-08-B-1654), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. GVK Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act by the owner against the award dated 4.3.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 30/2016. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 12.04.2014, the deceased Ravi 3 Yadav, while riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. C.G-08- 8-3237, was proceeding from Mohla towards Ambagarh Chowki when, near Metapar Bihri Kala, he collided with a stationary vehicle which was negligently parked in the middle of the road without any proper signal or indicator. As a result of the said accident, Ravi Yadav sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter a crime was registered against non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 5. In support of their claim, the claimants filed FIR (Ex. P-2), charge sheet (Ex. P-1) and spot map (Ex. P-3), and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,10,000/- under various heads on account of the death of Ravi Yadav, asserting that he was a skilled labourer earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further reflected from the record that non-applicant No. 1 remained ex parte before the tribunal, whereas non-applicant No. 2/appellant filed a separate written statement denying the facts of the accident as stated in the claim petition, and contended that the deceased Ravi Yadav was not holding an effective and valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle, and that the accident occurred solely due to his own negligence, thereby absolving the owner of the offending truck from liability. However, upon due appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- in favour of the claimants. 4 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, in as much as the Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability upon the present appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has failed to consider that there was no eye witness to the accident and none was examined by the claimants to prove their case, that the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was completely ignored despite clear material indicating that at least 50% liability ought to have been apportioned to him, that the monthly income of the deceased was arbitrarily assessed at Rs. 5,000/- without any documentary proof or cogent evidence, resulting in an exaggerated and shockingly high award, and thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, erroneous and liable to be set aside or suitably modified, with liberty reserved to the appellant to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants has supported the impugned award and submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are well reasoned, based upon due consideration of the evidence and material available on record, and therefore, call for no interference. 5 5. None for respondent No. 5. 6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 7. The accident in question and the resultant death of Ravi Yadav is not in dispute. The evidence on record, including FIR, charge sheet and spot map, clearly demonstrate that the offending truck was negligently parked in the middle of the road without any indicator or warning sign, which directly led to the accident. The appellant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to dislodge these findings. The argument that there was no eye witness to the incident does not hold much substance, as the documentary evidence filed by the claimants sufficiently proves the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. 8. As regards the plea of contributory negligence, the Tribunal, upon due appreciation of the material, did not find any credible basis to apportion liability upon the deceased. No substantive evidence has been brought on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle, or that he was not holding a valid driving licence. Mere pleading without proof cannot absolve the owner from liability. 9. On the aspect of assessment of income, it is settled law that in absence of direct documentary proof of income, the Tribunal is 6 empowered to make a reasonable estimation considering the age, occupation, and surrounding circumstances of the deceased. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which by no means can be termed either arbitrary or excessive. On the contrary, such assessment appears to be on the lower side in comparison to the claim made. Therefore, no interference is warranted on this count. 10. Thus, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and material on record while awarding just compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- to the claimants. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are neither perverse nor contrary to law so as to warrant interference in the limited scope of appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. 11. Thus, the finding of the claims tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh/Raghu Jat