1 2025:CGHC:32266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1760 of 2019 1. Dhaneshwar Singh S/o Somar Sal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Navapara Kala, P.S. And Tahsil- Prem Nagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner) ... Appellant-owner versus 1. Shivmangal Singh S/o Shri Parasnath Aged About 35 Years Cast- Gond, 2. Bhagwati Wife W/o Shivmangal Aged About 30 Years Both resident of Village Navapara Kala, P.S. And Tahsil- Prem Nagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3. Rampratap Singh S/o Shivnarayan Gond Aged About 18 Years Earlier Minor Through Natural Guardian And Fathershivnarayan Gond S/o Janghel Singh Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Navapara Kala, P.S. And Tahsil- Prem Nagar, Chhattisgarh........(Driver), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 11/07/2025 1. Appellant-owner has filed this appeal challenging the award 2 dated 5.7.2019 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.89/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of claimants for compensation in part; awarded total compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- in a case of death of Aditya Kumar Singh in a road traffic accident and fastened liability to pay amount of compensation upon the appellant herein. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.4.2018 when Aditya Kumar Singh, aged about 1½ years, was present in front of his house, at that time truck bearing registration number CG15-AE-3602 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), which was driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed Aditya Kumar Singh as a result he sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest was filed by the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed their joint reply and sought dismissal of claim application on the ground that accident was not occurred from their vehicle and at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not driving the vehicle. 4. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and 3 evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non- applicant No.1-driver and consequently, awarded a total sum of Rs.5,20,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Aditya Kumar Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal is filed by owner of offending vehicle only on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erroneously recorded a finding that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, driver. No other ground is raised. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of claim case. 7. Appellant is owner of offending vehicle, respondents No.1 and 2 are claimants and respondent No.3 was the driver of offending vehicle. After receipt of notice of claim case from the Claims Tribunal, non-applicant No.1 and 2 have submitted reply to claim application denying the fact of accident. From the order sheet of the Claims Tribunal it is appearing that non-applicants were represented through their advocate; Owner Dhaneshwar Singh was examined as NAW-2 and he has deposed in accordance with pleadings made in reply to claim application. In the cross- examination, this witness admitted that police seized his tractor and he received information about the accident after two hours of accident. He also admitted that driver of offending vehicle is 4 his grandson. He further admitted that he has not given any information or complaint to police station concerned or any higher police official. 8. Rajesh Kumar is examined as NAW-2 and he in his cross- examination stated that he has not informed the police about the accident. Though he denied giving information to the police based upon which FIR was registered, however, he admitted that police came on spot for investigation. 9. Claimants in support of their claim has produced copy of final report as Ex.A-1, FIR as Ex.A-2, merg intimation as Ex.P-3 along with other documents. 10.From perusal of merg intimation it is appearing that information was given to the police on 29.4.2018 at about 12:00 a.m. of the accident occurred on 29.4.2018 at about 7:30 p.m. Information to police was given by Shivmangal Singh, father of deceased. In the FIR also name of informant is mentioned as Shivmangal Singh (AW-1). 11.From the evidence available on record it is appearing that criminal case was registered against driver of offending vehicle, the same was seized by police during investigation. However, the owner of offending vehicle i.e. appellant herein, has not taken any step for false implication of his vehicle nor submitted any complaint before higher police officials. Though appellant has stated in his statement about submission of complaint before the Collector, but failed to bring on record any 5 documentary evidence in this regard. 12.The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has concluded that death of deceased Aditya Kumar Singh occurred out of motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1-driver of offending vehicle. Hence, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal. 13.For the foregoing, I do not find any substance in this appeal, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI