1 2025:CGHC:26407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1919 of 2018 1 - Phoolchand S/o Sundar Lal Prajapati, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Nimdha, Kodwahi, Post Silpahri, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vedprakash S/o Sundar Lal Prajapati, Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Mother Kaushilya Bai, W/o Sundar Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Nimdha, Kodwahi, Post Silpahri, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kaushilya Bai, W/o Sundar Lal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Nimdha, Kodwahi, Post Silpahri, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Amit Kumar S/o Mohanlal Jaiswal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Nimdha, Kodwahi, Post Silpahri, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - United General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Roop Kumar, S/o Shublal Partoti, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Piper Jhorki, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.06.24 19:15:50 +0530 2 4 - Reva Agrawal, S/o Manohar Lal Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Jain Mandir, Gourela, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chola Mandlam Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 26.9.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Claim Case No.12 of 2017, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the claim case filed by the claimants/appellants. 2. The appellants/claimants had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the respondents on account of death of one Sundar Lal Prajapati, who met with a motor accident on 21.12.2016 and died. In the application, it is averred by the claimants that on 21.12.2016 deceased Sundar Lal Prajapati was going to Village Larkeni with his son on his motor cycle. It is also mentioned in the claim application that the motor cycle was being run by deceased Sundar Lal Prajapati and all of a sudden a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG 10 NB 3 1052 which was being run by non-claimant No.4 in a very rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle and due to which deceased Sundar Lal fell down on the middle of the road whereas his son Phoolchand Prajapati got thrown away. It is further submitted that an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.CG 10 AD 5356 which was being run by respondent/non-claimant No.1 in a very rash and negligent manner crushed him and as a result of which deceased Sundar Lal received grievous injuries on his body and taken to the Sanatorium Hospital for treatment where on the way to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment he died. It is also averred in the claim application that the matter was reported to Police Station Marwahi on 5.1.2017 and on that Crime No.1/2017 was registered in connection with offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC. It is also mentioned that the deceased Sundar Lal Prajapati had an Auto rickshaw and he was a driver and was earning Rs.15,000 per month and further used to earn Rs.1,00,000 per annum by agriculture and the claimants are dependent on him. It is also mentioned that mainly the respondent No.1 is responsible for the death of deceased Sundar Lal Prajapati and claimed Rs.33,30,000 compensation. 3. Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement and denied the claim averments stating that Phoolchand, son of the deceased was driving the motor cycle whereas the deceased Sundar Lal was a pillion rider who could not control 4 his motor cycle and met with accident and due to which Sundar Lal died. It is also submitted that Phoolchand had no driving licence at the time of accident and thus they are not responsible for the death of deceased Sundar Lal and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 4. Non-claimant No.2/respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 from Auto driving and further Rs.1,00,000 per annum by agriculture. It is further stated that motor cycle was being run by son Phoolchand and the Auto driver was not negligent and no accident took place by the Auto as such the accident had already been occurred with the Bolero. It is also stated that there was a violation of insurance policy condition and thus non-applicant No.2/insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation. Non-claimant No.5/respondent No.5 Chola Mandlam Insurance Company also filed written statement and denied the claim averments and further prayed for dismissal fo the claim application. 5. The tribunal framed as many as four issues and dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the documents and evidence available on record in its true perspective and, therefore, reached in a wrong conclusion holding the appellants/claimants have failed to prove their case. The 5 tribunal erred in holding that deceased Sundar Lal was a pillion rider and the motor cycle was being run by his son Phoolchand. The tribunal ought to have held that the motor cycle was being run by deceased Sundar Lal whereas his son was sitting on his behind and further the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto driver and Bolero Driver and thus the insurers of the offending vehicles are liable to pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased. Hence, learned counsel prays that the instant appeal may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 United General Insurance Company Limited submits that the Tribunal has not erred in law while dismissing the claim petition. The Tribunal has held that the claimants could not prove that on the date of accident the deceased died due to negligent driving of offending vehicle No.CG 10 AD 5356 and Bolero bearing No.CG 10 NB 1052. It was further not proved that the vehicle was being run in contravention of the conditions of insurance policy. As such there is no merit in the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the perusal of record it appears that the son of deceased namely Phoolchand AW1 has not reported the matter before the police, though according to this witness he was travelling 6 along with his father as pillion rider. However, he has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged motor vehicle. The other witness examined in this case namely Ratanlal AW2 has also failed to establish the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle. The FIR Ex.A2 of the incident was lodged after 14 days of the incident by one Neelkamal Singh against Bolero vehicle. However, from the pleadings of the claim petition as well as from the evidence, it has been stated that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing No.CG 10 AD 5356. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the averments made in the FIR as well as in the claim petition are different and the accident as alleged has not been proved in accordance with law. Since it is doubtful from which vehicle the accident occurred as such the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimants could not prove the accident as such the claim petition has been dismissed. Before this Court also, the appellants have failed to prove the accident in accordance with law. From the evidence of the parties, it could not prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged Auto as such there is no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition which is not required to be interfered with. 7 10. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh