1 - 2025:CGHC:19033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 64 of 2020 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Panda W/o Ambika Prasad Panda Aged About 49 Years 2 - Ambika Prasad Panda S/o Late Akshay Kumar Panda Aged About 54 3 - Abhilash Panda S/o Ambika Prasad Panda Aged About 24 Years 4 - Amitesh Panda S/o Ambika Prasad Panda Aged About 22 Years Respondents No.1 to 4 all are Resident of In front Of Mata Mandir, Ward No. 12, Gharghoda, Police Station and Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sattu Kumar Soni S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Soni Resident Of Near Hanuman Mandir, Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Khushboo Duwa, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/04/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 17.09.2019, passed in MACT No. 768 of 2017, whereby the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur allowed the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.09 10:25:37 +0530 2 application filed by the applicants/respondents No.1 to 4 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded Rs.13,15,200/- on account of death of Abhishek Panda, who died in road accident. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.08.2017, Abhishek Panda was travelling on his motor cycle and when he reached at Mahamaya Square, non-applicant No.1 by driving the offending vehicle Sumo bearing registration No.C.G.-02/3824 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of Abhishek Panda and caused accident due to which he suffered severe injuries and died during the course of treatment at Apollo Hospital. 3. Claimants/respondents No1. To 4 being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.46,50,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was 25 years of age and after completing his Engineering in Mechanical Branch, he was preparing for higher education. He was also running coaching classes from where he was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. Deceased was highly educated young man with bright future. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 4. Non-applicant No.1/respondent No.5 submitted reply to the claim application and denied the pleadings made in the application. The happening of accident with the offending vehicle was denied. False report was lodged in the police station. It was pleaded that on the date of the incident, at about 7:30 PM, he went to Bilaspur from Raipur with Sakesh Saheb in the Sumo vehicle and after dropping Mr. Sakesh at 3 his residence in Uslapur around 11:05 PM, he proceeded to drop the helper, Ramnarayan Yadav, at Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, at approximately 11:25 PM. Thereafter, at around 11:30 PM, he parked the vehicle in the store/garage of Subdivision No. 1, Bilaspur, as per routine, and returned home. The claim application was filed on false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.2 and 3 also filed their reply denying the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that on 24.08.2017, at about 7:30 PM, respondent No.1 went to Bilaspur from Raipur with Sakesh Saheb in the Sumo vehicle and after dropping Mr. Sakesh at his residence in Uslapur around 11:05 PM, he proceeded to drop the helper, Ramnarayan Yadav, at Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, at approximately 11:25 PM. Thereafter, at around 11:30 PM, respondent No.1 parked the vehicle in the store/garage of Subdivision No. 1, Bilaspur, and returned home. It was further pleaded that as per the claim application, the date and time of accident is of 06/09/2017 at 1.30 A.M., whereas the government vehicle Sumo number CG 02/3824 was parked in the store room of Subdivision No. 1 Bilaspur at about 11.30 pm. It was also pleaded that objection was also made to the information published in the news paper regarding the accident from the offending vehicle. No accident as alleged was occurred from the offending vehicle. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and 4 died, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,15,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicants to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 granting compensation by recording a finding that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.5, driver of the vehicle. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the specific endorsement made in the medical documents that deceased on the date of accident was under influence of liquor, hence, deceased could not be awarded for his own wrong. The accident was the result of self negligence of deceased. Hence, claimants are not entitled for any amount of compensation. He next contended that as per pleadings made in the application and the evidence of NAW-1, the vehicle being driven and in the possession of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.5 was kept in the store campus after duty hours and at the time of accident i.e. mid night at 1 AM, vehicle was within the store campus of the appellants. It is also contention of learned counsel for appellants that merely registering of an FIR against respondent No.5/non-applicant No.1, would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5, driver of offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that learned Claims Tribunal awarded just amount of compensation in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. The grounds raised 5 by the appellants in the memo of appeal has not been proved by placing cogent and admissible piece of evidence. He contended that though it is mention in one of the document (Ex.A-10) that deceased was under the influence of the alcohol, however, it does not mention as to what was the percentage of alcohol found in the body of the deceased and further in the postmortem report also, there is no mention that liquor or its smell was found in the body of the deceased. Doctor, who prepared document (Ex.A-10) was not examined before the Claims Tribunal. He also contended that defence taken that the vehicle was parked in the store campus is also not proved by the admissible piece of evidence, hence, there is no merit in this appeal and it be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 supports the grounds raised by the appellants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 11. So far as the first grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants that deceased was under the influence of liquor is concerned, perusal of the record would show that the claimants have placed on record, the copies of the medical documents/admission sheet to prove that deceased died due to accidental injuries and deceased after suffering accidental injuries was taken to hospital immediately. Perusal of document (Ex.A-10) would show that though it is mention that “patient under the influence of alcohol” however, the doctor has not mentioned, the percentage of the alcohol found in the body of the deceased. 6 12. Further the doctor who prepared admission sheet was not called as a witness before the learned Claims Tribunal by the appellants/ respondents. Postmortem report (Ex.A-7) does not mention that some liquor or alcoholic smell was coming out from the stomach. It is for non-applicants, who have taken the defence that deceased fell down under the influence of liquor and met with an accident of his own negligence. It was the burden upon the appellants/non-applicants to bring the clinching and admissible evidence in this regard. As the doctor has not been examined before the Claims Tribunal who is author of Ex.A-10 or Ex.A-7, the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in not accepting the defence taken by appellants/non-applicants that the deceased at the time of accident was under the influence of liquor. Hence, the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants that the deceased met with an accident of his own negligence as he was under the influence of liquor is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled. This Court do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. So far as the third ground raised by learned counsel for appellants that the offending vehicle was parked in the store premises at the time of accident is concerned, one Pramod Singh Katlam, Executive Engineer, PHE is examined by appellants before the learned Claims Tribunal as NAW-1. In his evidence he admitted that he has not produced any documents before the Claims Tribunal to prove that on 24.08.202017 the vehicle was parked within the store campus of the appellants. No documentary evidence is placed on record to prove that the vehicle was parked in the store campus. To prove the defence taken by 7 respondent No.5/non-applicant No.1 that the government vehicle is to be parked in the premises within the possession of appellants i.e. government department, then entries are to be made of entering of the vehicle in the campus and also their exit with date and time. In this case, no such evidence is brought on record by the appellants/respondent No.5, hence, this Court is of the view that appellants/non-applicants failed to prove this ground. 14. Pramod Singh Katlam (NAW-1) in his examination-in-chief has marked and exhibited certain documents. This witness has admitted that respondent No.5/non-applicant No.1 has not made any complaint with regard to non-involvement of his vehicle in the accident. In fact he admitted that in criminal case a document is submitted authored by the Executive Engineer that on the date of accident i.e. 24.08.2017, the ill- fated vehicle C.G.02-3824 was being driven by respondent No.5/non- applicant No.1. He also admitted that no document is submitted before the Claims Tribunal to show that the vehicle was parked in the office store after the office hours. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where appellants/owner of the vehicle failed in pointing that the learned Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration the evidence available on record or have misread the evidence, hence, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in recording the finding that the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.5/non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of Abhishek Panda due to which he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and 8 further that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol in absence of admissible piece of evidence. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram