1 2025:CGHC:20040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 29 of 2019 1 - Shayam Bihari Darpatti S/o Ramlal Aged About 36 Years R/o Bogar, Thana And Tahsil Bhanupratapur, District U.B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus 1 - Hariram Yadav S/o Late Ankaluram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Hatkondal, Chowki Kacche, Tahsil Durgkondal, District- U.B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sagni Bai W/o Hariram Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Hatkondal, Chowki Kacche, Tahsil Durgkondal, District- U.B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Yashwant Singh Sahu S/o Chintaram At Present R/o Bogar, Thana And Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District U.B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Village Post and Tahsil Narharpur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No. 30/2018. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 06.04.2018 at 4.30 p.m., deceased Ku. Rashmi Yadav after giving her Final year BA examination at Govt. School, Bhanupratappur, was coming back to her native place Hatkondal on a motorcycle. She was sitting as pillion rider. On the way at village Bogar near Sahid Smarkak, appellant Shyam Bihari who was driving the offending vehicle Tractor Trolley No.C.G.13 L 0592 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which, deceased Ku. Rashmi Yadav sustained grievous injury and was admitted in Community Health Center, Bhanupratappur where she was declared dead. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs.32,40,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned Tribunal after close scrutiny of facts and evidence came to conclusion that on 06.04.2018 at the place of incident the Tractor Trolley which was driven by appellant rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle on which she was sitting as pillion rider, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. The appellant Driver has challenged the said finding in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there were 03 people on the motorcycle which met with accident. The driver of the 3 offending vehicle/ appellant has stated in his evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver Lokesh and collided with the tractor from behind. He submits that the tribunal did not accept his argument and considered the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle/ appellant which is erroneous. Since, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the motorcycle Lokesh, therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle appellant herein should be absolved of the liability. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants opposes the arguments of the appellant and submits that Lilavati, who was sitting on the motorcycle as pillion rider, has given a statement as a witness of the spot. According to her, the accident happened due to the rash and negligence of of appellant Shyam Bihari, the driver of the offending vehicle tractor-trolley, which has not been denied. The accident report was also lodged by Lilavati and the charge sheet was also filed against Shyam Bihari, the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus Lilavati’s statement is corroborated by the charge sheet. He submits that the argument of the appellant is not worth acceptable and hence the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and also thoroughly perused the record. 7. It is clear from the statements of the claimants’ witness Lilavati and non-applicant’s witness Shyam Bihari, the driver of the offending vehicle tractor-trolley that there were a total of 3 people on the motorcycle in which the deceased Rashmi Yadav was pillion rider. Lokesh was driving the motorcycle and Lilavati was also sitting in it 4 along with the deceased Rashmi. Thus, it is clear that there were a total of 3 people on the motorcycle. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique Versus National Insurance Company Limited AIR 2020 SC 520 and also this Court in Kaliram Sahu Vs. Chamanlal Dewangan reported in 2014 (1) CGLJ 431 held that three persons were riding a motorcycle is not sufficient for contributory negligence unless it is established that it contributed to the accident. 9. In the light of the above judgment, it is clear that merely on the basis of there being three passengers on a two-wheeler, it cannot be held that the driver of the motorcycle was also rash and negligent. 10. From the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is clear that the claimant-witness Lilavati, was the pillion rider of the motorcycle and her presence at the spot is affirmed by both the parties. She had lodged a report with the Police on the date of the accident itself, in which, it was stated that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Shyam Bihari, the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley. However, Shyambihari has stated that the accident happened due to the rash driving of the motorcyclist Lokesh, without mentioning his own rash and negligent act. But Lilavati’s evidence is not only supported by the FIR, but the charge sheet has also been filed against appellant Shyam Bihari. 11. In such situation, Shyam Bihari’s statement cannot be seen as beyond doubt and relying on Lilavati’s statement, which stood firm by 5 the charge sheet, the Tribunal has found that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said finding cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal warranting interference in the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao