1 2025:CGHC:16217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1785 of 2018 1 - Smt. Kunti Sahu Wd/o Late Satish Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Lakshmi Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shrikant Sahu S/o Late Satish Kumar Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Lakshmi Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Siddharth Sahu S/o Late Satish Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Lakshmi Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Harilal Sahu S/o Late Punit Ram Sahu R/o 10, Vivekanad Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Car No. C.G. 04/H/1360). 2 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, G..E. Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Car No. C.G. No. 04/H/1360). 3 - General Manager East Coast Railway, Waltair, District Vishkhapatnam Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.08 11:07:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 07 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal against the award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.700/2015 whereby the claim application has been rejected. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 83,20,000/- claimed by the claimants/appellants by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for the death of Satish Sahu (deceased), driver of the car bearing registration No. CG-04/H/1360 in the motor accident on 01.02.2015 at about 08:00 am; the Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the claimants. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, found that Satish Sahu died due to the accident between the car and the train, Satish Sahu himself was responsible for the accident, and the principle of contributory negligence has also not been proved in the case, therefore, the respondents not liable to pay compensation and the claimants/appellants are also not entitled to get any compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased died of use of the vehicle without any rash or negligent act on his part, but due to a mechanical fault in the car concerned. He further submits that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the negligence on the part of the respondent No.3. He also submits that the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under various heads, but the tribunal had not awarded any compensation. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the claimants are entitled to get just and proper compensation. 3 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. It is clear from the material available on record, particularly looking to the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 of Crime No. 47/2015, which was registered against deceased Satish Sahu and due to his death, no action has been taken that the deceased himself was responsible for the said accident. Furthermore, appellant Kunti Sahu was not present at the time of the accident, and on behalf of the appellants, the statement of Dharam Sahu (AW-2), who was present at the time of the accident, has been recorded, who has accepted that the train was blowing its horn from a distance from the accident spot, the car was standing at the accident spot, there is a speed breaker near the railway crossing which slows down the speed of the vehicle and the movement of the trains could be seen from the crossing gate. Thus, it is proved from the above evidence that the train driver was blowing the horn long before the accident spot. The movement of the train could be seen from a distance at the accident spot. The car of the deceased was standing at the time of the accident. Hence, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu