1 2025:CGHC:54508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 830 of 2018 1 - Daljit Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Balwant Singh Bhatiya Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - I.C.I.Ci. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager Claim I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance, Through Rohit Bagban, Vanijya Bhawan Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hardip Singh Bhatiya S/o Daljit Singh Bhatiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bajzarpara, Behind Lic Office, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shiv Shankar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bazarpara, Behind Lic Office Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 06.02.2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.27/2014 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the claimant(s). 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 24.05.2014, the appellant was travelling in a Tata Xenon Pickup bearing temporary registration No. C.G.-10-T.R.-1815/14, owned by Shri Hardip Singh Bhatiya and insured with the respondent insurance company. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent Manoj Kumar Sharma. The appellant, intending to visit Mahamaya Temple, Ambikapur, for offering puja and thereafter to obtain the permanent registration number of the said vehicle from the RTO, had proceeded from his residence at about 10:30 a.m. It is pertinent to mention that Hardip Singh Bhatiya, the son of the appellant, had left home earlier on his motorcycle for personal work at Ludeg and Kansabel and was, therefore, not travelling in the said pickup at the time of the incident. The pickup was not carrying any goods when, at about 11:15 a.m., while passing near village Guturma, the driver Manoj Kumar Sharma swerved the vehicle in an attempt to avoid hitting a cow that suddenly appeared on the road, causing the vehicle to lose control and meet with an accident. As a result, the appellant 3 sustained grievous internal injuries, whereas the driver escaped with minor injuries. The appellant was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre, Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon, from where he was referred by Dr. S.K. Singhal (M.S.) to O.P. Jindal Hospital for advanced treatment. He underwent treatment there from 19.05.2014 to 19.06.2014 and continues to receive medical care for the said injuries. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, disclosing all material facts and evidence in support of his claim. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that the appellant had failed to establish his case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the award dated 06.02.2018 passed in MACC No. 27/2014. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant most respectfully submits that the impugned award dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and contrary to the evidence and material available on record and, therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite sufficient evidence establishing that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the pickup van bearing temporary registration No. C.G.-10-T.R.- 1815/14 by respondent Manoj Kumar Sharma. The accident 4 occurred near village Guturma when the driver, in an attempt to avoid hitting a cow that suddenly appeared on the road, lost control of the vehicle, resulting in the appellant suffering multiple fractures and other injuries. An FIR bearing Crime No. 105/2014 was registered at Police Station Sitapur under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC on the report of Manjit Singh Bhatiya, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed against the said driver in Criminal Case No. 372/2014 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, wherein the driver admitted his guilt. The offending vehicle was duly insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company, and the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, making the insurer liable for compensation under the terms of the policy. The appellant filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and produced documentary evidence including the FIR, seizure memo, final report, arrest memo, police statements, and medical bills (Exhibits A-1 to A-10), none of which were controverted by the respondents. 4. Further, the witness examined by the insurer, Santosh Kumar Banjare, admitted that the vehicle was registered as a goods vehicle between 14.05.2014 and 13.05.2015, thus confirming the appellant’s lawful presence in the vehicle. The learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously held that the appellant failed to prove his case. In view of the uncontroverted evidence, medical records, 5 and legal position, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned award dated 06.02.2018, allow the present appeal, and grant just and reasonable compensation to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. There is no representation made on behalf of the respondents. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. Upon meticulous examination of the impugned order and the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to prove the basic and foundational fact , that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending pickup vehicle. The appellant’s version of the incident rests solely upon his own statement and certain documents which, upon scrutiny, do not establish a clear nexus between the injuries sustained and the involvement of the alleged vehicle. The learned Tribunal has recorded cogent reasons to hold that the documentary evidence, including the FIR and medical papers, do not satisfactorily corroborate the occurrence of the accident involving the said vehicle. 6 8. t is well-settled that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden lies upon the claimant to prove, by reliable evidence, that the accident occurred due to the use of the vehicle in question and that such accident was the result of negligence on the part of its driver. In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge this burden. The mere registration of an FIR or filing of a charge sheet, without independent and convincing corroboration, cannot by itself establish the factum of accident. In absence of credible evidence connecting the vehicle and the alleged act of negligence to the injuries sustained, the claim for compensation cannot be entertained. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal. The conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of the accident involving the offending vehicle is supported by the evidence on record and does not warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby Dismissed. The award dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Claim Case No. 27/2014 is affirmed. No order as to costs. 7 11. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna