1 2025:CGHC:59836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1561 of 2017 1 - Harishankar Mishra S/o Late Rambahoran Mishra, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kirari, Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Santoshi Devi, W/o Harishankar Mishra, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kirari, Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Om Prakash Aahuja S/o Brijlal Aahuja, Aged About 46 Years R/o New Sarkanda In Front Of State Bank, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Driver The Offending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 10/ B. B. /4889, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh Aahuja, S/o Brijlal Aahuja, R/o New Sarkanda In Front Of State Bank, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Owner The Offending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 10/ B. B. /4889, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ground Floor C. G. Complex In Front Of Geeta Laj Telephone Exchange Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address Pinsula Bijnes Park Tower A -15, Floor Ganpat Marg Lower Peral In Front Of Mumbai, Maharashtra. Insurer VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 The Offending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 10/ B. B. /4889, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. A.L. Singroul along with Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 09.12.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claims Case No. 598/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 15.05.2014, Ajay Mishra was riding a Splendor motorcycle and was travelling from his village to Bilaspur. When he reached near the Link Road, Bilaspur, a car bearing Registration No. CG-10-BB-4889, coming from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It was further stated that the deceased was earning ₹15,000/- per month at the time of the accident, and the claimants were entitled to compensation of ₹27,10,000/- under various heads. The offending 3 vehicle was driven by non-applicant No. 1, owned by non-applicant No. 2, and insured with non-applicant No. 3 (the Insurance Company) on the date of the accident. 3. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the car bearing No. CG-10-BB-4889 was not proved to be involved in the accident and that the claimants failed to establish the negligence of respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award dated 27.03.2017 is contrary to law, facts, and the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a serious legal error in holding that the claimants failed to prove the negligence of Respondent No. 1 as well as the involvement of Car No. CG-10-BB-4889 in the accident. The findings recorded in the Tribunal holds that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, whereas it concludes that the claimants failed to establish the negligence of Respondent No. 1, which presupposes involvement of the vehicle. Such inconsistent findings vitiate the impugned award. The Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and settled legal principles governing motor accident claims. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants, which needs no interference by this Court. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the claimants failed to produce the FIR lodged in connection with the death of the deceased. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal held that the claimants could not prove the occurrence of the accident, nor could they establish that the deceased died as a result of a vehicular accident, and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. 8. Under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, there is a provision that if certain records or documents required for adjudication of the claim petition are not available, the Tribunal may call for such records, including the FIR, and thereafter decide the matter. However, from perusal of the record, it appears that the Tribunal failed to discharge the duty cast upon it under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and, without considering this statutory obligation, proceeded to dismiss the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimants did not produce the FIR and other relevant documents necessary for deciding the case. 9. Motor accident claim cases are welfare-oriented proceedings, and therefore strict rules of evidence should not be rigidly applied. The Tribunal ought to have called for the FIR and the relevant criminal case records to ensure a just decision. However, it failed to do so and dismissed the claim petition merely for non-production of these documents. In these circumstances, the matter deserves to be remitted 5 to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after obtaining the records from the concerned Police Station and the criminal Court, so that the claim can be decided fairly and in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the observation that the entire matter is required to be remitted to the Court of the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, along with the original record, for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall reconsider the claim petition afresh after calling for all relevant records in Claims Case No. 598/2014, including the FIR and the criminal case records from the concerned Police Station and the competent criminal Court, so as to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal on 12.01.2026, without awaiting any further notice. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the case file along with the original record to the Tribunal for expeditious proceedings. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha