1 2025:CGHC:56820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 134 of 2020 1. Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Manacamp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No Cg. 04 Hl 5700), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Kartik Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Tahal Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Manacamp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No Cg. 04 Hl 5700), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Urmila Sahu W/o Late Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Late Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Ramkunwar Sahu W/o Late Pardeshi Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 38 of 2020 1. Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg. 04 Hl 5700) R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Manacamp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Kartik Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Tahal Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg. 04 Hl 5700) R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Manacamp, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.25 10:59:41 +0530 2 Versus  Gend Kumar Tandan S/o Late Sukal Das Tandan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Nakti, Sammanpur, Police Station Manacamp, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate holding the brief MAC No. 134 of 2020 of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 MAC No. 38 of 2020 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.11 .2025 1. In MAC No. 134 of 2020, driver and owner of the offending vehicle have filed appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, assailing award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur passed in Claim Case No. 26/19 dated 02.12.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 18,87,060/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of death of Anand Ram Sahu and fastened liability with the appellants. 2. In MAC No. 38 of 2020, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have preferred appeal against award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 25/19 dated 02.12.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 45,918/- and fastened liability with the appellants herein and further directed to make payment of compensation within a period of one month and in default amount of compensation would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Facts in brief are that on 27.08.2018 at about 8:30 pm, when the deceased Anand Ram Sahu and Gend Kumar Tandan were on walk, driver of car 3 bearing registration No. CG 04 HL 5700 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed them, consequently, they sustained injuries and Anand Ram Sahu succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained in the accident, whereas, Gend Ram Tandan sustained multiple injuries. 4. In MAC No. 134 of 2020, the wife, children and mother of deceased Anand Ram Sahu filed Claim Case No. 26/19, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 45 years and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and they claimed a sum of Rs. 45,25,000/-. The offending vehicle was not insured with any Insurance company. The appellants herein filed their reply and pleaded that due to enmity false report was lodged and another vehicle was involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal framed issues; claimants led their evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 5. In MAC No. 38 of 2020, the claimant/injured filed Claim Case No. 25/19 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,25,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. The appellants herein took similar plea as taken in Claim Case No. 26/19. The parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar Tandan, Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the car bearing registration No. CG 04 HL 5700 was not involved in the accident and due to malice it was implicated. He would further submit that the claimants could not adduce evidence to establish the fact that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. He would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened with the driver and owner of the vehicle. He would pray to allow these appeals. 7. Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate appearing for the claimant(s), in both the 4 appeals, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tandan. He would submit that prompt FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle and said vehicle was seized by the Police. He would further submit that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to examine any witnesses to substantiate that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. With regard to order of judgment of acquittal, he would submit that on the basis of acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle, it could not be conclude that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. He would further contend that both the appeals may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. As per claim petitions filed by the claimants, on 27.08.2018 at about 8:00 pm deceased Anand Ram Sahu and Gend Lal Tandan were dashed by the offending Car bearing registration No. CG 04 HL 5700. An FIR was lodged by Hemlal Tandan on 27.08.2018 itself at about 21:50 hours. Merg intimation was registered on 29.09.2018 after death of Anand Ram Sahu and intimation was given by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Anil Sahu. The offending vehicle was seized by the Police on 27.08.2018 itself at around 23:00 hours vide Ex. P/10(Claim Case No. 26/19). The driver of the offending vehicle was arrested on 27.08.2018 at around 23:15 hours. Thus, it can be concluded that prompt FIR was lodged, and immediately thereafter, the offending vehicle was seized and the appellants herein failed to rebut these documents. 10. Rejendra Kumar Sahu(AW/1) S/o Late Anand Ram Sahu narrated the incident in his evidence, and in cross-examination, he remained firm. Gend Kumar Tandan, who has filed claim case claiming therein compensation for injuries sustained by him was examined as AW/2, he has identified the 5 offending vehicle with its registration number, and in cross-examination, he also remained firm. The appellants herein could not examine any witnesses to establish the fact that their vehicle was not involved in the accident. 11. With regard to order of acquittal of driver of the offending vehicle, it would not affect the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, whereby liability has been fastened with the driver and owner of the vehicle. Firstly prompt FIR was lodged against driver of offending vehicle, thereafter, Police filed charge-sheet and appellants could not adduce evidence to rebut those documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar issue in the matter of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 in para 27 held as under :- “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal”. 6 12. The learned Tribunal after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence recorded categorical finding that the offending vehicle CG 04 HL 5700 was involved in the accident. 13. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the awards passed by the learned Tribunal in both the claim cases. Accordingly, appeals preferred by the appellants herein are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant