1 2025:CGHC:30994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2000 of 2018 1. Jagdish Patel, S/o Shatruhan Patel, Aged About 54 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Bhusandi, Post Khati, P.S. Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Lal Singh Patel, S/o Shatruhan Patel, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Bhusandi, Post Khati, P.S. Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Appellants versus 1. Smt. Phoolan Bai, W/o Late Ranjit Manhare, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhaurabhata, Tahsil & P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kuldeep Kumar, S/o Late Ranjit Manhare, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Of Phoolbai, W/o Late Ranjeet Manhare, R/o Dhaurabhata, Tahsil & P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vijay Manhare, S/o Ramai Manahare, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Dhaurabhata, Tahsil & P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dharam Bai, W/o Vijay Manahare, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Dhaurabhata, Tahsil & P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Claimants (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 07/07/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988'), questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No.95/2014, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,36,750/- with 9% interest per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.2014, when the deceased Ranjit Manhare along with Jageshwar and Bablu were coming from Dhamdha on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-07-ZR-6252 driven by Jageshwar, then a motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-17-LN-5719 was coming from opposite side driven by the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which Ranjit Manhare sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Primary Health Centre, Dhamdha and thereafter was referred to B.R.S. Apollo Bhilai and during treatment, he died on 30.01.2014. Jageshwar and Bablu also sustained injuries in the accident. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellants. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimants, which was partly allowed and the appellants has been directed to pay the awarded amount. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants. 3. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Tribunal interalia stating 3 that since the eye witness of this case, namely Jageshwar has not been examined, who was a necessary party and he has also not been made as a party in the claim petition, as such, the tribunal has illegally awarded the amount on the basis of claim petition filed by the claimants. Though, due to collision of two vehicles, Tribunal has considered the contributory negligence of both the vehicles and accordingly awarded sum of Rs.10,73,501/- but out of which due to contributory negligence, 50% of the total amount has been deducted and present appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,36,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly passed the impugned award contrary to the material available on record. Due to rash and negligent driving by Jageshwar, the deceased died. The eye witness Jageshwar has also not been examined, who was a necessary party and he has also not been made as a party in the claim petition despite that the claim petition of the claimants was allowed. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned award. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the award as well as the evidence putforth by the parties, it appears that the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon both the parties holding the accident to be of contributory negligence. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that Jageshwar and other deceased namely, Ranjeet 4 Manhare both were negligent in driving the vehicle, therefore, the accident occurred due to collision of the both the vehicles. As such, after appreciation, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award while holding that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the parties. Though, there is nothing on record to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material available on record, there is nothing on record to set aside the award or to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal, as such the appeal filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle is hereby dismissed. The claimants are entitled to the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to receive the said amount by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. 8. While challenging the award when this appeal was filed, this Court had passed interim order dated 04.01.2018, by which owner and driver of the vehicle were directed to pay 50% of the awarded amount within 4 weeks and rest of the amount has been stayed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Rs.25,000/- as statutory amount has been deposited however rest amount has not been deposited. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal filed by the owner and driver fails. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA