-1- 2025:CGHC:40267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1657 of 2019 Smt. Vatsla Bai W/o Shri Daulatram Aged About 70 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sushma W/o Late Anand Kumar Aged About 40 Years 2 - Akshay Kumar S/o Late Anand Kumar Aged About 20 Years 3 - Apeksha Anand D/o Late Anand Kumar, Aged about 17 years Through her mother Sushma W/o Late Anand Kumar All R/o Sakri, Near Water Tank, Thana Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Arjun Ram Rajwade S/o Shri Rambharos Rajwade Aged About 32 Years Village - Baroudhi, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) 5 - Tusendra Kumar Rajwade S/o Shri Rijhanram Rajwade R/o Village - Baourdhi, Police Station- Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver) 6 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Raipur Branch - 4th Floor, Maruti Hieghts. G. E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur Branch - Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), --- Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.07 11:25:50 +0530 -2- MAC No. 2096 of 2019 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G. E. Road Raipur, Through Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ......Non Applicant No. 3 ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Sushma Wd/o Late Shri Anand Kumar Aged About 40 Years 2 - Akshay Kumar S/o Late Shri Anand Kumar Aged About 20 Years 3 - Apeksha Anand D/o Late Shri Anand Kumar Aged About 17 Years Res. No. 3 Minor Represented By His Natural Guardian Mother Sushma Respondent No.1 All R/o Sakri, Near Water Tank, Thana Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Arjunram Rajwade S/o Rambharose Rajwade Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Baroudhi, Thana Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......Driver 5 - Tusendra Kumar Rajwade S/o Rijhanram Rajwade R/o Village Baroudhi, Thana Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ........Owner 6 - Smt. Vatsala Bai W/o Shri Daulat Ram R/o Gandhinagar Ambikapur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ............Non Applicant No. 4, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 11 /08/2025 Heard. 1. As both the appeals arise out of common award dated 22.06.2019 -3- passed in Claim Case No.93 of 2015 by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, both the appeals are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. MAC No.1657 of 2019 is filed by non-applicant No.4 in claim application (mother of deceased) challenging the impugned award primarily on the ground that death of her son Anand Kumar Janbandu is not due to motor accidental injuries but it is a murder and secondly, that Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Bilaspur is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim application filed by claimants who are widow and children of deceased because, as per pleadings made in the claim application, accident occurred at near Village- Jarahi, Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur, claim application is filed at Bilaspur and claimants are not resident of Bilaspur. 3. MAC No. 2096 of 2019 is filed by insurance company challenging the impugned award on the ground of jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal to entertain and decide the claim application filed by claimants before the Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, Bilaspur. 4. Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that on 25.10.2014, Anand Kumar Janbandhu alias Jagbandhu was riding his motor cycle on his side, tavelling at a balanced speed and when he reached near D.V. School, non-applicant No.1 came from the front with his vehicle trailer No.CG 15 AC 1491 driving rashly and negligently and dashed motorcycle of Anand Kumar Janbandhu, due to which, Anand Kumar Janbandhu suffered grievous injuries and died. Deceased Anand -4- Kumar Janbandhu was working as a permanent EP Turner at Dugga Colliery of SECL. He was earning Rs.67,714/- per month. Claimants claimed for total compensation of Rs.1,16,50,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 5. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 by filing their written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that as on the date of accident the offending vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No.3, if any amount of compensation is determined then non- applicant No.3 will be liable to pay the same. On the date of accident, driver/ non-applicant No. 1 had a valid and effective driving license. 6. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in its written statement denying the pleadings made in claim application pleaded that since non- applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive a heavy vehicle and the deceased also did not have a driving license to drive a motorcycle, non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation. Non-applicant No. 2 violated conditions of insurance policy. Alleged accident did not occur with the insured vehicle. 7. Non-applicant no. 4, Smt. Vatsalabai, who is mother of the deceased in her written statement, amongst other things, primarily pleaded that death of her son Anand Kumar did not cause due to any motor accidental injuries but it was a planned murder, by intentionally dashing motorcycle of the deceased with the offending vehicle trailer truck. Applicants/claimants in greed of getting compensation, have presented the claim application by calling the incident a normal motor accident. -5- Claimants have not presented any documents regarding their residence in Bilaspur area. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Anand Kumar Janbandhu suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.64,59,119/-. 9. Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for appellant in MAC 1657 of 2019 filed by mother of deceased would submit that Ramkumar Vishwkarma has informed the family members of deceased that driver of offending trailer has willfully dashed the motorcycle driven by deceased Anand Kumar Janbandhu. He also contended that DW1 Sanjay Janbandhu in his evidence in chief has stated that there was enmity of deceased with Gurujit Singh Maan and said Gurujit Singh Maan is having good relationship with owner of offending vehicle. 10. From the above facts, it is evident that collision of the trailer with motorcycle of deceased is not an accident but it is with a view to kill deceased Anand and therefore it is an offence under Section 302 of IPC and not under Section 304-A of IPC. He submits that from the documents placed on record at page No.38 of appeal i.e. letter dated -6- 13.02.2019 it is mentioned that earlier official accommodation No. M/257 was allotted to Late Anand Kumar who was an employee of SECL and after compassionate appointment of his son Akashya Kumar same quarter was allotted to him which shows that claimants were residing in the said quarter/official accommodation even on the date of filing of claim application. 11. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for appellant- insurance company would submit that in appeal bearing No. MAC No.2096 of 2019 also, ground of jurisdiction is raised. He contended that at the time of accident claimants were residing within district Surajpur, however, along with the claim application filed before Claims Tribunal at Bilaspur, no document has been placed on record to show their residence in Bilaspur. Hence, the claim application was not maintainable before the Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. 12. Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submission and would submit that non- applicant No.4/mother if for any reason is aggrieved that offence under appropriate provision of IPC i.e. Section 302 of IPC was not registered then she is having other remedy available under law. Said ground cannot be entertained and appreciated in the proceedings in appeal arising out of claim case. She also contended that as per her information, non-applicant No.4/ mother of deceased has initially filed one WPCR No. 65 of 2015 raising the same grievance as raised before this Court, however, it came to be dismissed. Upon asking with regard to the order if any passed in proceedings under WPCR No. 65 of 2015 -7- she submits that she is not having copy of said order. 13. At this stage, Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for insurance company submits that in his record copy of order passed in WPCR No.65 of 2015 is available and as per the order, it is appearing that WPCR was filed not by non-applicant No.4 (mother of deceased) but by brother of deceased (Sanjay Janbandhu). Counsel representing petitioner therein after arguing for some time has withdrawn the petition with liberty to avail other remedy available under the law. 14.Before this Court no document has been brought on record to show that non-applicant No.4 (mother of deceased) has taken any steps to raise a plea before the competent authority that registering of crime under Section 304-A of IPC is not sufficient in facts of case but according to facts available in charge sheet, offence under Section 302 IPC will be attracted. 15. For the foregoing discussions, argument raised by Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No.1657 of 2019 that the death of Late Anand Kumar is not the motor accidental death but it is a murder is not sustainable and is accordingly repelled. 16. So far as second the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals that Claims Tribunal at Bilaspur was not having jurisdiction to entertain claim case of an accident occurred within the territory of District- Surajpur is concerned, provision under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in this regard provides for application for -8- compensation. Section 166 (2) of the Act of 1988 envisages that every application under sub-Section (1) shall be made, at the option of claimant, either to the Clams Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. 17. Perusal of the Claim Application filed under Section 166 of the Act 1988 would show that claimants mentioned their place of residence at Sakari, near Water Tank, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur. Claimant No.2 Akshya entered into witness box in which same address is mentioned as mentioned in claim application. Widow of deceased Smt. Sushma, claimant No.1, is examined as AW1 . In her description also same address is mentioned as mentioned in claim application. 18. Perusal of the proceedings of learned Claims Tribunal would show that non-applicant No.4 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for return of claim application and to file the same before the appropriate Court/Tribunal. Said application came up for consideration before Claims Tribunal on 06.09.2017 and after hearing parties learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the said application taking note of provision under Section 166 (2) of the Act of 1988. Claims Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that office of insurance company is located at Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur. 19. In the aforementioned facts of case where the office of non-applicant -9- No.3/insurance company is having at Bilaspur, address of claimants mentioned in appeal, and in view of provision under sub-Section (2) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988, ground raised by learned counsel for respective appellants is not sustainable. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 244, while considering the issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal for entertaining claim application, has observed thus : “18. The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court. An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question viz. whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice. If it has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure of justice had occurred, the High Court should not have entertained the appeal on that ground alone. x x x 20. A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas in the case falling within the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject-matter of -10- claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the court should not have, in the absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appeal.” 21.In case of Malti Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, relying upon its earlier decision in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra) observed thus: “16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated.”………………………………... 22. In the aforementioned facts of case, provision under Section 166 (2) of the Act of 1988 as also aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for respective appellants and further any good ground to interfere with impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. Both the appeals being sans merits are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen