1 2025:CGHC:50049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1533 of 2019 Anil Kumar S/o - Shyamlal Aged About 18 Years R/o - Village - Udgan, Post Dagauri, Tahsil Bilha, District (Revenue And Civil) - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Nakul Kumar Ghosale S/o -Gendram Ghosale Aged About 28 Years R/o - Village - Dhaurabhatha, Police Station And Tahsil - Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhatisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vijay Kumar Mawani S/o -Radhakishan Mawani, R/o-House No-155 K, Kedarchal, Ward No. 03, Bilha, Tahsil -Bilha, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10-A.F. – 5388), 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Branch Office - 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Near Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Hiva Truck No. C.G. 10-A.F. - 5388) --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1460 of 2019 Gajendra Kumar S/o Late Sunil Kumar Aged About 16 Years Minor Through The Mother (National Guardian) Smt. Toran Bai W/o Late Sunil Kumar, Aged About 30year, R/o Village Udgan, Post Dagauri, Tahsil Bilha, District (Revenue And Civil Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant 2 Versus 1 - Nakul Kumar Ghosale S/o Gendram Ghosale Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhaurabhat Police Station And Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Dirver Of Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10-A, E, 5388), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Kumar Mawani S/o Radhakrishna Mawani R/o House No. 155k, Kedarchal, Ward No. 03, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District (Revenue And Civil ) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10-A.F.- 5388), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Branch Office 1 St Floor, Rama Trage Centre, Near Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of The Hiva Truck No. C.G. 10-A.F.- 5388), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) No.1 & 2 in MAC No.1533 of 2019 For Respondent No.2 in MAC NO.1460 of 2019 For Respondent No.3/Insurance Company : : : None in two rounds Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 08/10/2025 1. These two appeals have been preferred against the awards dated 27.03.2019 passed in Claim Case Nos. 367/2018 and 390/2018, respectively, passed by the learned III rd Additional Motor Accident 3 Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby the claim applications preferred by the claimants were dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2017, the appellants/claimants, namely Anil and Gajendra, along with one Rakesh, were deployed at a Bhathapara Khar Khadan (stone mines) for the purpose of loading and unloading stones on the Hywa bearing registration number CG-10-AF- 5388. The offending vehicle was equipped with hydraulic trolley. The deceased sat on the trolley. At the destination, the driver of the said vehicle switched on the hydraulic pump of the trolley without informing the claimants, as a result, they fell down from the vehicle along with the stones and sustained grievous injuries. On the same day, i.e., 13.12.2017, their MLC was conducted, and the fact of the incident was narrated by them. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of 12,40,000/- and 11,90,000/- respectively on ₹ ₹ account of the injuries sustained by them in the said accident. 3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3, i.e., the driver, owner, and insurance company, filed their respective reply and denied the averments made in the claim applications. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle pleaded that the claimants were travelling in the trolley without their prior permission or knowledge. It is also stated that the claimants were not engaged by the owner of the vehicle for any work, hence, they are not entitled to get any compensation. 4 4. The insurance company took a plea that the offending vehicle was driven without a valid driving licence and it was plied without a valid registration, permit, or fitness certificate. The learned Tribunal framed issues. Both the parties led evidence, and the learned Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, dismissed both the claim applications. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the claimants were deployed at Bhathapara Khar Khadan (stone mines) by the owner of the vehicle to load and unload stones from the site into the offending vehicle (Hywa). It is argued that on fateful day, the claimants sat in the trolley of the Hywa and its Driver switched on the hydraulic pump without informing the claimants, resultently, they sustained injuries. He further referred to Ex A/2 (MLC report), wherein the claimants narrated story to the police. It is contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that the claimants were traveling on the trolley without the driver’s permission; thus, the impugned awards deserve to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submit that claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that they were engaged by the owner of the vehicle. It is also argued that since the truck had an automatic hydraulic system, thus there was no necessity 5 for labourers to unload stones manually, therefore, the contention made by the claimants that they were employed for such work is misconceived. It is further argued that as the claimants were travelling in the trolley without knowledge of the driver, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petitions; thus, they prayed that these appeals may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The claimants have specifically deposed that they were engaged by the owner of the truck for loading and unloading stones and they were travelling on the trolley on the instructions of the driver. During cross- examination, their testimony remained consistent. The driver of the offending vehicle stated that the claimants were travelling on the trolley without his knowledge. However, he admitted that he never lodged any complaint with the police regarding such alleged unauthorized travel by the claimants. The MLC report (Exhibit A/2) dated 13.12.2017 also supports the version of the claimants as the narration of the incident therein is consistent with their testimony. 9. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim cases on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver has not been proved. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal appears to be erroneous as the claimants themselves have pleaded and deposed that they were engaged by the driver & owner of the offending vehicle and they were 6 travelling in the trolley on the instructions of the driver; and MLC report dated 13.12.2017 fortifies stand of the claimants. 10. In view of the above discussion, both the impugned awards passed by the learned Tribunal are hereby set aside. 11. The matters are remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties. The parties would be at liberty to lead evidence, if so advised. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 26.11.2025. 13. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim