1 2025:CGHC:20475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 109 of 2018 1 - Videsh Lal S/o Dhaniram Aged About 40 Years Caste Urao, R/o Village Padariya, Post Amaru, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jamela Bai W/o Videsh Lal Aged About 37 Years Caste Urao, R/o Village Padariya, Post Amaru, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Lok Singh S/o Ratiram Aged About 26 Years Caste Bhaina, R/o Village Jatadevri (Basinpat Mohalla) P.S. Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Dwarika Prasad Meshram S/o Ramsundar Meshram R/o Village Lalati, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Divisional Office Rama Trade Centre, Bus Stand, Near Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Adv. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.06 13:44:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 05 .0 5 .202 5 ) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal against the award dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.26/2016 whereby the claim application has been rejected. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 54,00,000/- claimed by the claimants/appellants by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for the death of their son Shivprasad (deceased), in the motor accident on 12.09.2016 at about 4:00 pm by accident vehicle bolero bearing registration No. CG-10-W-5653; the Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the claimants. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, found that Shivprasad (deceased) died due to the fall from bicycle on the road where he crashed from the offending vehicle; rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle has not been proved in this case, therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation and the claimants/appellants are also not entitled to get any compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned claims tribunal has failed to see that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have not stated in their written statement that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself, whereas they have stated that the accident did not take place due to their vehicle. He further submits that after the said accident, an offence was registered against the respondent No. 1 and thereafter a charge sheet has also been filed in which it is found that 3 due to the negligence of respondent No. 1, the accident took place. Therefore, the finding of the learned tribunal is perverse and is also not sustainable. He also submits that the learned tribunal has failed to see that if the vehicle was not negligently driven at high speed, then even if the deceased had fallen, the driver of the vehicle could have stopped the vehicle. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed, and the claimants are entitled to get just and proper compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. In the case in hand, Videsh Lal (AW-1), father of the deceased admitted in his cross examination that in para 23 of his application he has written that his son, deceased Shivprasad, fell due to slipping of the cycle and he had also given a statement to the police regarding his son’s fall due to slipping of the cycle. Apart from this, Vivek Kumar (AW- 2) also admitted in his cross-examination the fact that he was sitting on the cycle being ridden by the deceased and when the cycle was brought down from the road, the cycle slipped, due to which, deceased Shivprasad fell on the road. He also admitted that no vehicle driver hit his cycle. 8. Considering the above statement of eye witness Vivek Kumar (AW-2), it is clear that when Shivprasad and this witness fell due to the slipping of the cycle, Shivprasad fell towards the road and at the same time, the accident vehicle coming from the front hit Shivprasad, and due to that Shivprasad got injured. In such a situation, since it was not 4 possible for the driver of the said vehicle to stop the vehicle suddenly due to Shivprasad suddenly falling in front of the accident vehicle coming from the front of the road, Shivprasad got hit by the vehicle. 9. Accordingly, in such a situation, the driver/respondent No.1 of the accident vehicle cannot be held that he was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said accident occurred rather it was found that deceased Shivprasad got injured due to his falling in front of the accident vehicle while it was moving on the road. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal of the appellants is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu