1 2025:CGHC:52430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 275 of 2023 Sukdev Rathiya @ Sukhdev S/o Dev Singh Rathiya Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kottmer, Thana And Tahsil Kartla, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Safik Khan S/o Tahar Khan, R/o Village Nondahara, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) 2 - Vinod Kumar Khande S/o Late Durga Prasad, Address Rupesh Colony Rampur Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) 3 - Branch Manager Through The United Insurance Company Limited, T.P. Nagar Korba, Thana Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.10.29 16:54:09 +0530 2 MAC No. 327 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mankunwar W/o Late Mahettar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Nondahara, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Late Mahettar Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Mankunwar W/o Late Mahettar, R/o Village Nondahara, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Safik Khan S/o Tahar Khan, R/o Village Nondahara, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) 2 - Vinod Kumar Khande S/o Late Durga Prasad, Address Rupesh Colony Rampur Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) 3 - Branch Manager Through The United Insurance Company Limited, T.P. Nagar Korba, Thana Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg 12 Ba 1178) ... Respondent(s) 3 For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.10.2025 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common accident and common order passed by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, they have been heard together, clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned order dated 25/01/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 134/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants holding that it has not been proved that the accident occurred by the offending Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 12 BA 1178 on account of rash and negligent driving of Safik Khan i.e. respondent No. 1 herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submit that the injured appellant/claimant namely Sukhdev Rathiya, 4 who is the eye-witness, has been examined before the Tribunal who has clearly stated that on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1 Safik Khan while driving the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 12 BA 1178, the accident in question occurred and he remained consistent during cross-examination, therefore, his statement stands uncontroverted and as such, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim applications filed by the appellants/claimants. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned order and submit that since the driver of the offending motorcycle i.e. respondent No. 1 Safik Khan did not suffer any obvious injury and further the said motorcycle was also not damaged, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1 Safik Khan while driving the offending motorcycle has not been proved and as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim applications filed by the appellants/claimants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that respondent No. 1 namely Safik Khan, who was driving his motorcycle 5 bearing Registration No. CG 12 BA 1178 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle which was being driven by the injured appellant/claimant Sukhdev Rathiya and Mahettar Singh, who was sitting in the said motorcycle as pillion rider, died on account of the injuries suffered by him. 7. Injured appellant/claimant Sukhdev Rathiya, who is an eye-witness to the incident, has been examined before the Tribunal and he has clearly stated that respondent No. 1 Safik Khan, who was driving the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 12 BA 1178 in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side of the road and dashed appellant’s motorcycle. A careful perusal of his statement would show that he has remained consistent in his version and he has also been subjected to cross- examination wherein his statement has remained uncontroverted. There is no evidence available on record to hold that Sukhdev Rathiya is not the eye-witness to the incident and to disbelieve his statement. Furthermore, respondent No. 1 Safik Khan has also been charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC vide Ex. P/1. 8. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 12 BA 6 1178 was not damaged and driver respondent No. 1 Safik Khan also did not suffer any injury cannot be accepted as it has not been proved by leading evidence as no person, mechanic, etc. has been examined to report about the condition of the motorcycle and neither any Doctor has been examined to report about the injuries suffered by Safik Khan, therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1 Safik Khan while driving his motorcycle, is not a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and as such, it is hereby set aside. Consequently, the impugned common order dated 25/01/2023 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Cases No. 134/2021 and 135/2021 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants within one month from the date of appearance of parties before the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, both of these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet