1 2025:CGHC:52419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 737 of 2020 1 - Ganeshu Yadav, Son of Late Panchuram Yadav Aged About 23 Years (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. Cg 06 E 2358) R/o Village Dhanora, Shaktipara, Police Chowki Padnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naresh Kumar Sahu S/o Shatruhanlal Sahu Aged About 42 Years (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. Cg 06e 2358) Village Dhanora, Shaktipara, Police Chowki Padnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus Smt. Rajkumari Sahu Wife Of Santosh Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Gondpendri, Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent with MAC No. 739 of 2020 1 - Ganeshu Yadav, S/o Late Panchuram Yadav, Aged About 23 Years (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. C G 06 E 2358) R/o Village Dhanora, Shaktipara, Police Chowki Padnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2 - Naresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shatruhanlal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. C G 06 E 2358) R/o Village Dhanora, Shaktipara, Police Chowki Padnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Malti Sahu W/o Late Rajkumar, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dewada, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dagesh Kumar, S/o Late Rajkumar, Aged About 01 Years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Malti Sahu, R/o Village Dewada, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jageshwar Sahu, S/o Samaylal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dewada, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Mantora, W/o Jagesar Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dewada, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent in MAC/737/2020 & Respondents in MAC/739/2020 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 28/10/2025 1. The Driver and owner of the offending vehicle (CG-06-E-2358) have filed these appeals challenging the liability as well as quantum of the compensation against award passed by the learned VI th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg in Claim Case No. 3 254/2019 & Claim Case No.253/2019 dated 10.02.2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 9,77,200/- with interest @ 9 % per annum in Claim Case No. 254/2019, on account of death of Akash Sahu, whereas in Claim Case No. 253/2019, the claimants have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,90,800/- with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Rajkumar Sahu. 2. Facts of both cases are that on 20.01.2019, at about 07:30 hrs., Akash Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu were returning from Utai to their village Gondpendri on motorcycle (CG-07-LU-4627) and at the same time, driver of the offending vehicle Tractor (CG-06-E-2358) by driving it rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle, consequently, they sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3. The claimants filed Claim Cases and claimed Rs. 29,70,000 & Rs. 38,90,000/-, respectively. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle took a plea that the offending vehicle was stationery on the side of the road and the deceased Akash Sahu by driving motorcycle rashly and negligently, dashed the stationery Tractor (vehicle in question) and sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of the treatment. The driver and owner also took a plea that deceaseds were negligent and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellants/ Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle (CG-06-E-2358) would sbumit that the deceaseds Akash Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu by driving the motorcycle (CG-07-LU-4627) rashly and negligently dashed the stationery Tractor and there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the offending Tractor. He would contend that the learned Tribunal committed error in fastening liability with the appellants. He would contend that the witnesses have been examined by the claimants , but 4 they failed to prove the fact that there was head on collision. He would further submit that the claimants have exaggerated income part of the deceaseds. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation at higher side. He would pray to set-aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submit that from bare perusal of the relevant pages of the charge- sheet and the evidence of witnesses examined by the claimants, it is amply clear that there was a head on collision between the motorcycle and the offending Tractor. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has examined the documentary and oral evidence and thereafter passed the award. The claimants have taken stand that offending vehicle was stationary as the offending vehicle was not insured. She would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In Claim Case No. 254/2019, claimants have filed copy of charge-sheet. FIR was lodged by Toran Lal Sahu on 20.01.2019 at Police Station Utai, District Durg, wherein, it is stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and which resulted in accident. The rider & pillion rider of motorcycle fell down & sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 8. The Crime Details Form Ex.P/3 would reveal the place of accident; Investigating Officer has stated in this Form that the blood stains were detected at the middle of the road and this document has not been rebutted by the appellants; thus, it can be presumed that place of accident was middle of road, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Ruparel that the vehicle was stationery on the side of the road cannot be accepted. 9. AW/1- Rajkumari Sahu, & AW/2 Toran Lal Sahu fairly stated that they 5 were not eye witnesses. AW/3 – Ramavtar Sahu stated that he was a pillion rider on different motorcycle and he witnessed the accident. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at high speed by its driver. NAW/1 – Naresh Sahu in examination in chief has stated that the offending vehicle was stationery at the side of the road. This witness further stated that the offending vehicle was not insured. It is also admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license. This witness also stated that no complaint was made before the higher Police officials against false implication of vehicle in accident. 10.The appellants hereby failed to rebut the documents Ex.P/2 & P/3 copy of FIR and Crime Details report. In evidence, the appellants, failed to prove & establish the fact that the offending vehicle was in stationery condition. 11. The learned Tribunal has considered oral and documentary evidence and thereafter passed the award, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim