2025:CGHC:48566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 604 of 2019 Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Chaitram Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Saigona, Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. .........Res. No. 2/ Owner., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Ganga Bai Yadav Widow Of Shri Puran Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimants., 2. Ku. Kiran Yadav D/o Late Puran Yadav Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ganga Bai, Widow Of Late Puran Yadav. R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 3. Ku. Hemlata D/o Late Puran Yadav Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ganga Bai, Widow Of Late Puran Yadav, R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 4. Ku. Kamini D/o Late Puran Yadav Aged About 18 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ganga Bai, Widow Of Late Puran Yadav, R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 5. Bisahu Yadav S/o Shri Padum Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 6. Prembati Yadav W/o Shri Bisahu Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7. Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Chandulal Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Saingona, Tahsil Thankhamhariya, P. S. Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. .......Res. No. 1 ......Driver., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents __________________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 6 : Shri Arvind Prasad, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12 /09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / Owner, being aggrieved by the award dated 17/12/2018 passed in Case No. 44/2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.). 2. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal against a compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/- an amount of Rs.09,88,000/- was awarded in favour of the respondent No.1 and 6/claimants on account of death of deceased – Puran Yadav in an accident that occurred on 22/12/2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-1832 by respondent No.7/driver and owned by the appellant. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased Puran Yadav was going on the motorcycle Deluxe bearing registration No. CG-25-C-5755 which was dashed by the offending vehicle as a result he died. 4. The claim application was resisted pleading that excessive compensation was claimed. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and decided the same in favour of the respondent No.1 to 6 / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award which led to filing of this appeal by the appellant /Owner on various grounds including a plea that the deceased himself was under intoxication and he fell on road no accident occurred with offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is on higher side, there was no negligence of the offending vehicle. The deceased himself was under intoxication and he fell on road no accident occurred from the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits that criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was also filed and the claimants on the basis of -3- preponderance of probabilities have prove the factum of accident and negligence of respondent No.7. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended record. 9. First contention is that no accident has occurred. From perusal of record it appears that issue no.1 was framed in this regard. On assessment of the evidence and material available on record including the criminal papers exhibited, the tribunal found the issue as proved against the appellant and driver of the offending vehicle which is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence which does not require any interference hence this contention is rejected. 10.Second contention is with regard to the reduction of the compensation. The Tribunal found deceased to be aged about 26-30 years and found Rs.6000/- his per month income, looking to the date of accident and awarded Rs.09,88,000/- for loss of earning. It is to be seen that no future prospect is added by the learned tribunal, therefore this contention is also rejected. 11.Consequently appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- -/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish