Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35896 (CHH)

RAHUL GUPTA @ PREETAM v. SMT. PADMAWATI

MAC/730/2021 · 2025-09-11

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:46955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 730 of 2021 Rahul Gupta @ Preetam S/o Shatrughan Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Main Road, Simara, P. S. Podhi, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Padmawati W/o Late Bahadur Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Harra, Nagpur, P. S. Podhi, Tehsil Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajamil Singh S/o Bahadur Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Harra, Nagpur, P. S. Podhi, Tehsil Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Krishna Chand Singh S/o Bahadur Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Harra, Nagpur, P. S. Podhi, Tehsil Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None despite service S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board 12/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellant/owner assailing legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned award dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Manendragarh, 2 District- Korea (C.G.) {for short, ‘Claims Tribunal’ } in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 2019. 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 23,00,000/-, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,75,000/- on account of death of deceased- Bhadur Singh in an accident that occurred on 19.03.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 16-CE/9148 by its driver/appellant. 3. An application under Section 166-A of the MV Act was filed by the claimants/respondents pleading inter alia that on the date of accident, the deceased was seated in the offending vehicle which was driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent way dashing the tree due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. As per further pleadings, the deceased was working as a Cook and the respondents/claimants were fully dependent upon his income. The learned Tribunal relying upon the Second Schedule, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. The said application was denied by the appellant on various grounds. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-driver/owner submits that the impugned award is bad in law as the said compensation was awarded without considering the evidence on record, therefore, the appellant could not be held liable to pay the compensation, which is on higher side. 6. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-driver/owner and perused the documents available on record. 3 8. Issue No. 1 was framed in respect of death of the deceased- Bhadur Singh in an accident occurred on 19.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant/owner. Relying upon the Exhibits of documents i.e. First Information report, Naksha Panchanama and Postmortem report etc. and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Bimla Devi & Others Vs.Himanchal Road Transportation reported in (2009) 3 ACJ 1725, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the accident has occurred on the basis of preponderance of probability, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the accident has not occurred is liable to be rejected. The other submission that excessive compensation has been awarded is also liable to be rejected as the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,75,000/- has been awarded after relying upon the Second Schedule. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the award under challenge, this Court finds no merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-driver/owner as well as in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput,) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.24 18:59:21 +0530