1 2025:CGHC:17523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1682 of 2018 Pushpa Agrawal W/o Ram Kishore Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o- Guru Ghasidas Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Kush Yadav S/o Darasram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o- Near Girls School, Ward No. 12, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Darasram Yadav S/o Lagan Sai Aged About 62 Years R/o- Near Girls School, Ward No. 12, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16 / 04 / 2025 1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.22 17:06:37 +0530 2 MACT No.32/2017 whereby the claim application preferred by the appellant/claimant has been rejected. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in short, was that on 06.04.2016 at about 10 AM, the appellant/claimant was busy in house construction work at that time, Respondent no.1 rashly and negligently drove the motorcycle bearing registration CG-11-M- 5061 and dashed the Appellant due to which she sustained fracture on her right wrist and also sustained injuries on other parts of her body, therefore, the claimant had preferred a claim application under section 166 of the MV Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.7,06,592/-. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, rejected her claim application vide impugned order dated 04.09.2018, leading her to filing this appeal. 4. The basis for rejection of the claim application is that the Tribunal did not believe from the evidence that the injury sustained by the injured/Appellant was caused as a result of the collision with the motorcycle and hence the Tribunal has rejected the claim application. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the accident was caused by respondent no.1 hitting the appellant with his motorcycle, therefore, considering the negligence on the part of respondent No.1, the award should be passed. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable compensation. 6. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the evidence, it seems that a report of the said accident was lodged before Akaltara Police Station based on which charge-sheet (Ex.A-1) under Sections 323, 325, 294, 506-B along with Section 279 of IPC and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of 3 Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against Respondent No.1. It is noteworthy that the charge-sheet has not been filed under Section 337 & 338 of the IPC. 9. The appellant/claimant has not given any information regarding how the accident occurred and how did Respondent No.1 cause her injury. Similarly, the appellant has claimed that her witness, Ramkishor Agrawal (AW-2), was present at the scene of the accident. However, this witness, Ramkishor Agrawal (AW-2), has also not provided any substantive evidence regarding the accident. The appellant herself, and her witness Ramkishore Agrawal (AW- 2), have stated that based on the report lodged by the appellant and the statements given, the Akaltara Police Station registered an offence against Respondent No. 1 under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and filed a charge sheet. However, no offence under Sections 337 or 338 IPC which relate to physical injury caused by the accident was either registered or charge-sheeted. It is notable that the appellant has not submitted a certified copy of her own statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC before the Akaltara Police in the related criminal proceedings. Therefore, according to the evidence of the report filed by the appellant (Exhibit A-2), it is apparent that the appellant informed the Akaltara Police that on the date of the accident, Respondent No. 1, while driving a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, causing her to fall. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 allegedly picked up a stone and struck her on her right hand, causing a fracture injury. Based on this version, the Akaltara Police did not register an offence under Sections 337 or 338 IPC but instead registered and filed a final charge sheet under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. 10. Based on the above, the Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence held that due to the exaggerated and contradictory statements made by the claimant/appellant in her police statement and during the proceedings, as well as the undisputed fact of prior enmity between the parties, it cannot be established beyond doubt that the 4 fracture to the appellant’s right hand was caused due to the accident allegedly committed by Respondent No.1 on the date of the incident. In the case of Ambalika Singh & Others vs. United India Insurance Corporation Limited & Others, 2018 (1) T.A.C. 2017 (All.) it is also held that in a compensation claim case, it is essential to establish that the injuries were caused as a result of an accident involving a motor vehicle. It has not been established that the appellant’s injury was caused by a collision with a motorcycle, instead, the charge-sheet reveals that the injury was caused due to the assault by Respondent No.1. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any irregularity or error in the impugned order of dismissal of the claim application calling for interference. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham