1 2025:CGHC:39127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for Order on : 23.07.2025 Order Passed on : 06/08/2025 MAC No. 2087 of 2019 1 - Smt. Ranjana Deewan W/o Late Satanand Deewan Aged About 46 Years, 2 - Ku. Rishita Deewan D/o Late Satanand Deewan Aged About 24 Years 3 - Rishabh Deewan S/o Late Satanand Deewan Aged About 19 Years 4 - Smt. Kamla Bai Deewan W/o Late Manharan Aged About 67 Years All are R/o Village Malpurikala, Post Oteband, Tahsil Dhamdha, Police Station Nandini, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Sadaram Nishad S/o Jagdish Ram Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Kokadi, Post Pauwara, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Vehicle Car C G - 04, H - 7829), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Kumar Nishad S/o Kishori Lal Nishad, R/o House No. 3/2, Mansarowar Colony, Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Vehicle Car - C G - 04, H - 7829), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Supela, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Vehicle Car C G - 04, H - 7829) ---- Respondents BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.08 10:36:17 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV ORDER 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been filed by claimants/appellants challenging the impugned award dated 31.08.2019, passed in Claim Case No.289/2016, whereby learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants.. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.41,70,250/- under different heads on account of the death of Satanand Diwan, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 27.01.2016, Satanand Diwan was returning to his home in Durg on his motorcycle after completing his duty. When he reached near Allahabad Bank, in front of Chawla Glass, Kumhari, Non- Applicant No.1, who was driving a Palio Car bearing registration number CG-04H-7829, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind, causing an accident. As a result, Satanand Diwan sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 31.01.2016. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Satanand was 45 years old able bodied person and was working as Page Maker in Nai Duniya Newspaper and was 3 earning Rs.18,500/-. Claimants were dependent upon them and due to his untimely death, they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not file any reply and they were proceeded exparte before the Claims Tribunal. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the offending Palio Car bearing No. C.G.-04-H7829 has been falsely implicated in the alleged road accident as no accident occurred from the offending vehicle. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, upon evaluating the pleadings and entire documentary and oral evidence, dismissed the claim application recording a finding that that the claimants failed to adduce admissible evidence demonstrating the involvement of the Palio Car (C.G.-04H- 7829), leading to this appeal by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application in its entirety. He contended that deceased Satanand while traveling on his motor cycle was dashed by Palio Car bearing C.G.-04H-7829. Police based on the report lodged, upon completion of investigation has submitted charge- sheet against the driver of offending car from which it is appearing that there is involvement of the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal raised suspicion on the pleadings in the main application only on the ground that the accident is dated 27.01.2016 whereas the report was lodged in the police station on 13.03.2016 without 4 considering the other documents of the criminal case like mourge intimation, seizure of the vehicle etc. Merely delay in lodging of the FIR would not be only consideration for the Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim suspecting on the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. As per the evidence available in the record of the claim case, the claimants and their witnesses in particular terms have stated about the involvement of the offending vehicle (Palio Car bearing No. C.G.-04H- 7829). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the documentary and oral evidence available on record rightly concluded that the claimants failed to prove by admissible evidence about the involvement of the Palio Car in the accident and dismissed the claim application, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 8. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, perused the record of the claim case. Upon perusal of the record would show that the accident is dated 27.01.2016. Satanand Diwan died in the accident on 31.01.2016. The morgue was intimated to the concerned police station vide Ex.P-5 on 31.01.2016 mentioning that cause of death due to road traffic accident. This morgue intimation was forwarded to Police Station Moudahapara Raipur. Handwritten morgue intimation is available as Ex.P-4, wherein also the date of death is mentioned 31.01.2016 at about 10.00 AM and cause of death is 5 mentioned as road accident. Based on the morgue intimation, initially FIR was registered on 13.03.2016 against unknown vehicle. After registration of the FIR, police started investigation of the crime and during investigation, statement of the witnesses were also recorded, documents were collected and charge-sheet was filed against Sadaram Nishad/non-applicant No.1. From the aforementioned documents referred it is appearing that after receipt of the morgue intimation from the hospital about motor accidental death of late Satanand Diwan, police investigated the crime, recorded statement of the witnesses Ramesh Kumar Diwan, Manharan Lal, Sanjay Diwan and others, submitted final report/charge sheet. The claimants examined Smt. Ranjana Diwan as (AW.-1), who made statement before the Claims Tribunal as per the pleadings made in the claim application. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the counsel of the non-applicant No.3. She was not the eye-witness to the accident, however, in the cross-examination, she stated that at the time of accident, her father-in-law was accompanying the deceased. She further stated that according to vehicle examination report (Ex.P- 11), headlight, visor and indicator of the motor cycle driven by the deceased was found to be damaged. One Ravi Kumar Singh is examined as (A.W.-2) to prove the employment of the deceased and Premchand Yadav (Head Constable) is examined as (A.W.-3). He was posted at Police Station Kumhari, District – Durg. In his evidence he state that he got knowledge about offending vehicle for the first time when he inquired about accident with the witnesses. He further stated that upon inquiring with the non-applicant No.1, he admitted his guilt. He was arrested and being the offence bailable, he 6 was released on bail. He admits that in the morgue intimation, there is no mention of the number of the offending vehicle and in Ex.P-7 there is mention that accident by unknown vehicle. Ex.P-7 is an application to send the body for postmortem. The witness Premchand Yadav, Head Constable (AW-3) further stated that he has not recorded the statement of the persons nearby to the place of accident. In the spot map prepared by the police during investigation also, there is no mention of the number of the offending vehicle. He also stated that he came to know for the first time about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident on 14.03.2016 when he recorded statement of the witnesses. Statement of Manharan Lal Diwan was recorded on 14.03.2016, however, he did not mention the model and colour of the car. This witness also stated in his evidence that he reached on the place of accident on 14.03.2016, he did not enquire about the accident with the nearby people. The memo sent to the RTO verifying the name of the owner and address is not part of the case diary, however, clarified that it is part of the charge-sheet. In para -18 this witness has admitted that Manharan Lal Diwan in his police statement (Ex.P-14) has not stated that on the date of accident, he was travelling along with Satanand Diwan on his motor cycle as pillion. In the facts of the case from the aforementioned discussed evidence it is appearing that there is no eye-witness to the accident, report is lodged against unknown vehicle and FIR was also registered against unknown vehicle even after the morgue enquiry. This fact that even the FIR was registered against the unknown vehicle after morgue enquiry raises suspicion in the story as narrated forming part of the criminal case in final report. There is an admission by the Head Constable who 7 investigated into the crime that he has not recorded the statement of nearby persons, where the accident occurred. There appears to be no material for the police to arrive at a conclusion. Even the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police, which is marked as Ex.P-13, P- 14 and P-15 does not mention as to any of the person witnessed to the accident. Manharan Lal Diwan, who is stated to be father in law, gave statement to police that he was in the house and he was informed by other nearby persons about the accident of his son. Ranjana Diwan (AW-1) widow of the deceased in her statement stated that at the time of accident, her father in law (Manharan Lal) was accompanying the deceased. 9. True it is that for deciding the claim case, the nature of proof required is not of beyond reasonable doubt as required in the criminal case but it is to be decided on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. 10. Upon considering entire material available on record, it is appearing that there is no eye-witness to the accident, morgue was reported to the police mentioning that the death of the deceased was on account of road accident, FIR was registered after mourge enquiry against unknown person, claimants have not examined any person or witness, who has seen the vehicle or the accident, even the Investigating Officer has stated that he has not recorded statement of the nearby people of the place of accident. Manharan Lal Diwan, (father of deceased) said to be travelling on same vehicle is not examined as witness before Claims Tribunal. 8 11. In the above facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error or infirmity in the finding recorded by the leaned Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove that the accident and death of late Sadanand is by vehicle bearing No. C.G.-04H-7829. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram