1 2025:CGHC:49776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1684 of 2024  Jitish Singh S/o Late Rakesh Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Nagopahari, Post Fastarpur, Tahsil And District Mungli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Balram Sahu S/o Vikram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Thakkarbapa, Ward Mungeli And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver The Offending Vehicle Matador No. C.G. 04/m.N./6201) 2. Umashankar Sahu S/p Ramswaroop Sahu, R/o Ravanbhatha Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District-Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner The Offending Vehicle Matador No. C.G. 04/m.N./6201) 3. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 1st Floor Galaxy Heights, Near-I.C.I.C.I. Bank Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer The Offending Vehicle Matador No. C.G. 04/m.N./6201) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate along with Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : None Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.08 18:23:33 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 7-10-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 62/2022 dated 24.2.2024 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case. 3) Facts of the present case are that on 13.5.2022, the appellant/ claimant while driving his motorcycle dashed the stationary Matador vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-MN-6201 and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Mungeli and later on, was referred to Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur. Subsequently, FIR was lodged at P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli and Crime No. 392/2022 for commission of offence punishable U/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC was registered against the driver of Matador vehicle, namely, Balram Sahu. 4) Appellant moved a claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,50,000/- on various heads including pain & suffering, physical pain & mental agony, attendant charges, special diet and loss of earning. It is further pleaded appellant used to run Poultry Shop and Mobile Shop and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and he spent huge amount of 3 money on treatment. Driver and owner of Matador vehicle filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. They pleaded that appellant, being intoxicated, had lost control and struck the stationary Matador vehicle. They further pleaded that Vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company). Respondent No. 3 filed reply and specifically pleaded that claimant himself was negligent in dashing the stationary Matador vehicle and FIR was lodged after 1 ½ months. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and learned Claims Tribunal passed the award. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case filed by the appellant/ claimant on the ground that claimant himself was negligent in dashing the stationary Matador Vehicle which was parked beside the road. He further submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of Matador vehicle as it was parked at the middle of road and parking lights were not on. He contends that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error of law while dismissing the claim case. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose. She submits that Matador vehicle was not parked at the middle of road, rather it was parked beside the road and claimant himself was negligent in dashing the stationary vehicle. She further submits that learned Claims Tribunal after 4 considering the Crime Details Form [Ex. P-4] prepared by the Police during the course of investigation and oral evidence led by parties, dismissed the claim application. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) Admittedly, on 13.5.2022, claimant while driving his motorcycle dashed a stationary Matador vehicle. FIR was lodged on 27.6.2022 at the instance of appellant against the driver of Matador vehicle. Crime Details Form [Ex. P-4] would show that Matador vehicle was parked at the side of road and was in stationary position when the appellant dashed his motorcycle and sustained injuries. Further, claimant also failed to examine his friends who were travelling in the separate vehicles adjacent to him. 9) In evidence, the claimant has stated that vehicle was parked at the middle of road whereas in cross-examination, he has stated that driver of vehicle was trying to park it. On the contrary, in the FIR, he stated that vehicle was parked on wrong side. Learned Claims Tribunal after considering the relevant documents and evidence led by parties, dismissed the claim application holding that (i) the vehicle was parked on the side of the road ; (ii) claimant himself was negligent in dashing the stationary Matador vehicle and (iii) there are contradictions in the contents of FIR and evidence of claimant. 10)Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find 5 any infirmity in the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a