-1- 2025:CGHC:40116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1970 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 5) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vanaspati Devi Wd/o Nawal Sai Aged About 25 Years Occupation Housewife 2 - Dhirendra Kumar S/o Nawal Sai Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Vali Elder Father Kumar Sai, S/o Kalsai, Aged About 30 Years 3 - Bhuneshwari @ Dhanmet D/o Nawal Sai Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Vali Elder Father Kumar Sai, S/o Kalsai 4 - Kumar Sai S/o Kal Sai Aged About 30 Years Occupation Job All R/o Village Kunj Nagar, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.) (Claimant No. 4) 5 - Bhuneshwar Prasad S/o Shri Tilbikram Ram Rajwar Aged About 31 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Harra Tikara, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.) (Defendant No. 1) 6 - Prakash Chandra Pushti S/o Purnachand Pushti Aged About 38 Years Owner Of Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing No. Cg 15 A 1590, R/o Shivnandanpur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh). (Defendant No. 2) 7 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:26:00 +0530 -2- Ambedkar Square, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3) 8 - The Manager Gyanodaya Deaf And Dumb School, Bishrampur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.) (Defendant No. 4) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 & 6 : None appears though served For Respondent No.7 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 30/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant-State challenging the award dated 24.04.2018 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Surajpur, District- Surajpur (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.124 of 2007. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 17.04.2004 at 6.30 a.m. when Navalsai was coming from Chhuipara, Rampur driving his motor cycle No-CG. 15C 8329 along with one Devnath, at the same time, Non-applicant No.1 Bhuneshwar Prasad, driver of school mini bus No.CG. -3- 15A 1590 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) owned by non- applicants No. 4 & 5, drove the bus from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle driven by Navalsai, caused an accident, in which Navalsai suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Before the accident, deceased Navalsai was working with SECL Vishrampur and was earning Rs. 12,000/ per month. Claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. As the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/insurance company, non-applicant no.3 is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement admitted that it had insured the offending vehicle -mini bus CG 15 A 1590, but they have denied all the facts pleaded in the claim application and further stated that mini bus CG 15 A 1590 which caused the alleged accident was acquired by the government for election. Therefore, the entire responsibility of compensation for the accident lies with the Chhattisgarh government. Driver of the offending vehicle has not committed any negligence, rather he was driving the offending vehicle carefully. They have also denied the monthly income of the deceased. Driver and owner of offending vehicle and the owner of the motorcycle have driven both the vehicles in violation of the terms of insurance policy. Deceased Naval Sai did not have a license -4- to drive the motorcycle and the driver of offending vehicle, Bhuneshwar, also did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimants. 5. No written statement was filed by non-applicant No.4/Principal Govt. Gyanodya Deaf and Dumb School Vishrampur as also by non-applicant No.5/State through Collector. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by Bhuneshar Prasad rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Navalsai suffered fatal injuries and died. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.8917/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,23,720/-, held liable to driver of the offending vehicle and State of Chhattisgarh to satisfy the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant –State submits that finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that offending vehicle – Bus has been requisitioned for election work is erroneous as respondent/owner and driver of offending vehicle failed to produce any subsequent order or proceedings drawn by the Collector of submitting the offending vehicle on requisition dated 06.04.2004 before the Collector or the subordinate officer. He also submits that this is second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier the award dated 23.01.2008 passed in Claim Case No.124 of 2007 was challenged by the Insurance Company in MAC No.650 of 2008 -5- challenging the liability fastened upon it on the ground that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with licence. The appeal filed by Insurance Company was allowed in part, insurance company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation, however, matter is remitted back to Claims Tribunal to decide responsibility to pay compensation in the light of observations made therein. However, after receipt of case in remand, learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant/government observing that vehicle was in the control and possession of appellant/State pursuant to order of acquisition of the vehicle for election purpose vide order dated 06.04.2004. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence placed on record by respective parties have rightly concluded that offending vehicle was acquired by the Collector for election purpose vide order dated 06.04.2004 and accident was subsequent to date of acquisition i.e. 17.04.2004. He also pointed out that no other document is placed on record by the Collector to prove that vehicle requisitioned vide order dated 06.04.2004 was not submitted before the Collector thereafter and hence there is no error or infirmity in the award passed by Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.7/insurance company would submit that insurance company has been exonerated from liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. However, he submits that impugned award is passed on appreciation of evidence available on record before the Claims Tribunal. -6- 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. Claim case No.124 of 2007 initially was decided by learned Claims Tribunal vide award dated 23.01.2008 fastening liability upon insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. The award dated 23.01.2008 was put to challenge by insurance company in MAC No.650 of 2008. Appeal filed by insurance company was allowed, it was exonerated from its liability to pay compensation and case was remitted back to the Claim Tribunal observing as under : “7. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated but for the purpose as to who will pay the compensation whether the owner of the vehicle or the State Government/Collector who had requisitioned the vehicle and the accident took place at the time when the vehicle was under the possession and control of the Collector is to be decided by the Claims Tribunal by conducting an enquiry and summoning the relevant records from the Election Office/Collector and for that purpose the matter is liable to be remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh.” 12. In the order of remand, Division Bench of this Court further granted liberty to parties to claim application to amend their pleadings, lead evidence. Case was received back by the Claims Tribunal in remand on 15.09.2011. On 18.12.2013 parties to claim proceedings have made a prayer before the Claims Tribunal to fix the case for evidence and, accordingly, case was fixed for evidence on 03.02.2014. On 03.02.2014, -7- learned counsel for applicants made a prayer for closing the evidence of claimants. Accordingly, opportunity to lead additional evidence by claimants has been closed and case was fixed for recording of evidence of non- applicants and fixed the date on 05.03.2014. In the proceedings dated 27.06.2014, learned counsel for non-applicants made submission before the Claims Tribunal that they do not want to lead any further evidence and, accordingly, right to lead further evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments. 13. From perusal of the impugned award, it is appearing that non-applicant No.5/State Govt. has not submitted reply to claim application controverting the pleadings made in claim application or reply submitted by other non- applicants. In reply submitted by non-applicant/ insurance company they have specifically taken a defence that that State Govt. is a necessary party because offending bus was on election duty. However, defence taken in the reply by insurance company has not been controverted by the appellant/State (non-applicant No.5). Learned Claims Tribunal has taken note of the photocopy of the order dated 06.04.2004 of the Collector engaging the vehicle in the election duty. The issuance of order by the Collector dated 06.04.2004 is not disputed by learned counsel for appellant. However, his submission before this Court is that though there is an order of engaging the vehicle for election duty including the offending vehicle, however, offending vehicle was not submitted by owner of the offending vehicle before the Collector for its use in election duty. 14. In the aforementioned facts of case, order issued by Collector dated 06.04.2004 engaging the offending vehicle in election duty is not in dispute. -8- With respect to submission of learned counsel for the appellant that vehicle was not submitted by owner of offending vehicle before Collector, no admissible evidence is brought in this regard . No document has been placed by non-applicant No.5/ State Govt. before the Claims Tribunal nor have examined any witness to adduce such evidence. In absence of any documentary or oral evidence brought on record by appellant/non-applicant No.5, ground raised before this Court that owner of the offending vehicle has not submitted the vehicle pursuant to order dated 06.04.2004 cannot be accepted, hence, the said submission of counsel for appellant is repelled. 15. One important fact of the case is that appellant has not submitted any reply taking a defence as raised before this Court in this appeal. The appellant got opportunity to bring that fact before the Claims Tribunal after remand of case wherein the Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to amend the pleadings and lead further evidence to all the parties to the claim proceeding, however, appellant chose not to submit written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application or the stand taken by non-applicants in their reply. According to election law, if once the District Election Officer has issued some order requisitioning the vehicle to be used for election purpose then there is no option for the owner of the vehicle to refuse the compliance of such order as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi and Ors. 2008 (1) SCC 414 as under: “13. It is not a case where the car was handed over to a person with consent of the owner thereof. When a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner of the vehicle has no -9- other alternative but to hand over the possession to statutory authority.” 16. In the aforementioned decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered its earlier decision of in case of Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari (1997) 7 SCC 471, which read as under: “15. In Kailash Nath Kothari [(1997) 7 SCC 481] , however, this Court in a case, where a bus was given on lease by the owner of the vehicle Shri Sanjay Kumar in favour of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, held that when an accident takes place when the bus was plied under the control of the Corporation, it was the Corporation alone who would be liable for payment of compensation, stating : (SCC p. 488, para 17) “17. … Driver of the bus, even though an employee of the owner, was at the relevant time performing his duties under the order and command of the conductor of RSRTC for operation of the bus. So far as the passengers of the ill-fated bus are concerned, their privity of contract was only with RSRTC to whom they had paid the fare for travelling in that bus and their safety therefore became the responsibility of RSRTC while travelling in the bus. They had no privity of contract with Shri Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus at all. Had it been a case only of transfer of services of the driver and not of transfer of control of the driver from the owner to RSRTC, the matter may have been somewhat different. But on facts in this case and in view of Conditions 4 to 7 of the agreement (supra), RSRTC must be held to be vicariously liable for the tort committed by the driver while plying the bus under contract of RSRTC. The general proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer, that is the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible vicariously for the tort committed by the employee concerned during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, is a rebuttable presumption. If the original employer is able to establish that when the servant was lent, the effective control over -10- him was also transferred to the hirer, the original owner can avoid his liability and the temporary employer or the hirer, as the case may be, must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the employee concerned in the course of his employment while under the command and control of the hirer notwithstanding the fact that the driver would continue to be on the payroll of the original owner. The proposition based on the general principle as noticed above is adequately rebutted in this case not only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties but also on the basis of Conditions 6 and 7 (supra), which go to show that the owner had not merely transferred the services of the driver to RSRTC but actual control and the driver was to act under the instructions, control and command of the conductor and other officers of RSRTC.” (emphasis in original)” Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly concluded that as the offending vehicle subject matter of aforementioned case was in the control of State Govt., and State shall be liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants and not the registered owner of vehicle. 17. In afore-discussed facts of case and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability upon non-applicant No. 1/driver of offending vehicle and non-applicant No.5/State to satisfy the amount of compensation. 18. It is also need to be mentioned that two claim cases were filed against non-applicants therein including driver, owner and against State and in both cases liability was fastened upon State however State Govt. has not challenged the award passed in Claim Case No.123 of 2007 which as of now has attained finality and therefore also no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award passed by Claims Tribunal. -11- 19. Appeal filed by the State Government being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen