1 2025:CGHC:57997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 666 of 2024 1 - Bharat Sahu S/o Late Jhanglu Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sandi, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tulsi Bai Sahu W/o Late Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sandi, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Shivkumar Sahu S/o Rama Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S.- Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Maniram S/o Dukhitram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S.- Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nirmala Sahu W/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S.- Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemraj Sahu S/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S.- Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tameshwar Sahu S/o Late Tikaram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Nirmala Bai, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kaushilya Bai W/o Ram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Mohbhattha, Pas Kodwa, Tahsil- Berla, P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 255 of 2024 1 - Maniram S/o Dukhitram Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village- Mohbhatta, Tahsil - Berla, Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kaushaliya Bai W/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Mohbhatta, Tahsil - Berla, Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Nirmala Bai Wd/o Teekaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Mohbhatta, Tahsil - Berla, Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hemram Sahu S/o Late Teekaram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Mohbhatta, Tahsil - Berla, Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tameshwar Sahu S/o Late Teekaram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Through His Natural Guardian, I.E. Mother Namely Smt. Nirmala Bai Wd/o Teekaram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village- Mohbhatta, Tahsil - Berla, Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Bharat Sahu S/o Late Jhanglu Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Ward No. 11, Tariya Para, Sandi, Tahsil- Berla, Chowki- Devkar, Police Station And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, P I N 491993. 2 - Tulsi Bai Wd/o Surej Kumar @ Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ward No. 11, Tariya Para, Sandi, Tahsil- Berla, Chowki- Devkar, Police Station And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, P I N 491993. Chandulal Sahu S/o Bharat Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Tariya Para, Sandi, Tahsil- Berla, Chowki- Devkar, Police Station And District - Bemetara, 3 C.G. Pin 491993 (Since Died) Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg/25/k/2001 On 31/08/2022 3 - Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Manager, 2nd Floor, Shiv Arpan 18/14, Daxin Gangotri, Supela, G E Road, Bhiali, District- Durg, C.G. Pin 490023 (Insurance From 10/02/2021 To 09/02/2026) Registered Insurer Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg/25/k/2001 On 31/08/2022 --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate (MAC/666/2024) Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate (MAC/255/2024) For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate (MAC/666/2024) For Respondents No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate (MAC/666/2024) For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate (MAC/255/2024) For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate (MAC/255/2024) Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 28/11/2025 1. In MAC/255/2024:- 2. Heard on I. A. No.1, application for condonation of delay. 3. Mr. Goverdhan would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the claimants against judgment of dismissal of claim petition. He would further submit that due to poverty the claimants could not prefer this appeal within time. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants. 4 5. Heard. 6. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Goverdhan and reasons assigned in the application I.A. No.1 is hereby allowed and delay of 26 days caused in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. 7. Also heard on admission. 8. Admit. 9. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 10.The claimants have filed this appeal (MAC/255/2024) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against award dated 06.10.2023, passed in Claim Case No. 45/2023 (Maniram & four others v. Chandulal (dead) & three others) by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Bemetara, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. 11.Mr. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in MAC/255/2024 would submit that on fateful day i.e. 31.08.2022, the deceased- Teekaram Sahu was sitting as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration No. CG/25/E/5948 and it was being driven by Ajay Sahu. He would also submit that when they were returning from village Maniyari after dropping one Anand Chowbey, at that time, at about 06:30 PM, from opposite side, one motor cycle bearing registration No. CG/25/K/2001, which was being driven by one Suresh Sahu, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their motor cycle, resultantly, the deceased Teekaram and Ajay Sahu sustained injuries and deceased was immediately hospitalized at SR Hospital and Research Centre at village Chikhli and thereafter, looking to his serious condition he was referred to Mekahara and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2023. He would also submit that a Crime No. 266/2023 was registered u/s 304 -A of IPC against Ajay Sahu but as he also died in the said accident, therefore, closure was filed in the said 5 crime number. He would contend that the claimants, who are parents and children of the deceased filed claim case and pleaded that the deceased Teekaram Sahu was 49 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from his agricultural field and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,20,000/- from the respondents. He would further contend that the respondents including the insurance company, filed their reply and denied all the claim averments. 12.Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in MAC/666/2024 would submit that on 31.08.2022, the offending vehicle CG/25/E/5948, being driven by Teeka Ram Sahu, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased Surej @ Suresh Kumar Sahu and resultantly, he died. He would further submit that the claimants filed claim petition and claimed Rs.19,50,000/- but same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 06.10.2024, in Claim Case No. 12/2023, passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, on the ground that the deceased Surej @ Suresh Kumar Sahu was negligent; thus, he would pray to set-aside the award impugned. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Amit kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & Mr. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants/claimants and support the award passed by the learned Tribunal and submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants as the deceased Suraj Kumar Sahu was negligent while driving the motorcycle. 14. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 & Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company in MAC/255/2024 would submit that the deceased Teekaram Sahu did not have valid and effective driving 6 licence on the date of accident; thus, there was breach of policy condition, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 15.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 16.Admittedly, there was head on collision between two motorcycles bearing Registration No.CG/25/K/2001 driven by Surej @ Suresh Kumar Sahu & CG/25/E/5948 driven by Teekaram Sahu, resultantly, both the riders sustained grievious injuries and lost their lives. Their legal representatives filed claim cases against each other. In MAC/255/2024, offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, but the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 17.In MAC/666/2024, the learned Tribunal dismissed claim petition only on the ground that though the driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.CG/25/K/2001, Sarej @ Suraj Kumar Sahu had valid and effective driving license but he was negligent and his LRs cannot take benefit of his negligence. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana vs Surinder Singh & Ors reported in 2008 (12) SCC 436, held that mere driving without a licence does not amount to contributory negligence and it may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident The relevant para – 9 and 10 are reproduced as under:- “09. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence 7 but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence. 10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.” 19. Taking into consideration above discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has committed error of law while dismissing the claim petitions of the claimants in both cases. Accordingly, the awards impugned are hereby set-aside and the claim Cases are restored to their original Numbers. 20. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 19.12.2025. 21. In the result, the appeals are hereby allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim