1 2025:CGHC:10651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1752 of 2016 Reserved on 25.02.2025 Delivered on 04.03.2025 1. Dhaneshwar Rajwade Dead Through LRs 1A. Amar Singh Rajwade S/o Late Shri Dhaneshwar Rajwade, Aged About 45 Years R/o Taraju, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 1B. Maniram S/o Late Shri Dhaneshwar Rajwade, Aged About 40 Years R/o Taraju, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 1C. Devmen Bai W/o Late Shri Dhaneshwar Rajwade, Aged About 60 Years R/o Taraju, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Jhanku Ram S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 60 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Kanchanpur, Post Latori Jamgala, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 2. Suraj Kunwar W/o Jhanku Ram, Aged About 55 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation House Wife, R/o Kanchanpur, Post Latori Jamgala, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh .............… Claimants Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.03.05 10:51:33 +0530 2 3. Charan Pal S/o Ramjeet, Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Tractor Driver, R/o Village Kanchanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ................ Driver 4. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. And Head Office New India Insurance Building, 87 Mahatma Gandhi Marg Fort, Mumbai 400001, Branch Address Development Officer, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ............. … Insurer 5. Pramila W/o Late Shri Manjit Ram, Aged About 20 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Kanchanpur, Post Latori Jamgala, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village Sapkara Mani Chowk, Post Dedri, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. C A V O R D E R 1. It is an owner’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 29.07.2015 passed by 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (CG) in Claim Case No.166/2013 whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal was that on 31/12/2007, deceased Manjit Ram was going from village Kanchanpur to Umrouli along with his friends Balram Rajwade and Devprasan 3 Rajwade. Respondent Charan Pal, while driving the offending power tractor (sold) bearing Engine No.E3058006 & Chassis No. B 3053937 and Trolley Chassis No. SE-35T/455/07 rashly and negligently, caused an accident near Gram Panchayat Umrouli, due to which Manjit Ram suffered grievous injuries and died on 05.01.2008 during treatment in CIMS Hospital Bilaspur. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.14,85,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle as the vehicle was not insured, against which the present appeal has been filed by the registered owner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant - vehicle owner argued that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, rather Manjeet was injured after being hit by a buffalo. He submits that Manjeet did not have any accident with the alleged offending vehicle. Since there was no accident with the offending vehicle, the appellant/owner is not liable for payment of any compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the award in question. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 & 4 submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is clear from the evidence presented by both the parties that the 4 accident is said to have happened on 31/12/2007. Manjeet died on 05/01/2008 i.e. 5 days after the incident. In the Merg Intimation Exhibit P-2, it is mentioned that Manjeet died on account of being hit by a buffalo. The same fact is also mentioned in Inquest Report Exhibit P-4 and postmortem application Exhibit P-5. The First Information Report Exhibit P-3 has been registered by the Police after merg enquiry on 18/01/2018, i.e. about 18 days after the alleged accident. 7. Learned Tribunal, relying upon the evidence presented by the claimants side, held that Manjeet died due to the injuries sustained as a result of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. Hence the vehicle owner and driver have been held responsible. 8. It is noteworthy that apart from the deceased's father Jhanku Ram (AW-1), Vifan Das (AW-2) and Jagannath (AW-3) have been examined as eyewitnesses to the accident from the claimant side. They have confirmed the fact that Manjeet died due to injuries sustained as a result of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. 9. It is a well settled principle of law that the statement recorded before the Court is the substantive piece of evidence. The Merg Intimation, Inquest Report or the application for post-mortem can be a supporting evidence but it is not the substantive evidence. The non-applicant party has got the statements of the sons of the vehicle owner Amar Singh & Maniram, Premsai (समधी) and ward boy Panna Ram recorded in support of their case. But they are hearsay witnesses. According to which, Manjeet got injured due to buffalo hitting. Witnesses of hearsay are not admissible in evidence. Panna Ram is the ward boy who merely presented the information given by the doctor to the Police. He was not able to tell on what basis and on whose information it was mentioned in the inquest that Manjeet died due to buffalo hitting. Thus, the 5 statements of Amar Singh, Maniram, Premsai and ward boy Panna Ram are based on hearsay. The Merg Intimation, Inquest Report and the application for postmortem are also supporting evidence and not substantive evidence. 10. Whereas the statements of Vifan Das (AW-2) and Jagarnath (AW-3) as eyewitnesses from the claimant side are available on record in which they have stated that they had seen the accident caused by the offending vehicle in which Manjeet died. In such a situation, only their statements are admissible in evidence. Even after completion of investigation by the Police, the offending vehicle was found to be involved in the accident and charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Charan Pal. On the basis of that substantive evidence and the investigation of the Police, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that Manjeet died as a result of the injury sustained in the accident caused by the offending vehicle does not appear to be perverse and contradictory to the evidence brought on record. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the said conclusion. 11. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai