1 2025:CGHC:53706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1604 of 2018 1 - Yugal Kishore @ Golu S/o Panch Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khursidih, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hemlata D/o Pandey Vishwakarma Aged About 18 Years Hearing Impaired, Through Guardian And Nearest Suit Friend Pandey Vishwakarma, R/o Village Khursidih, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Mamta D/o Pandey Vishwakarma Aged About 18 Years Hearing Impaired, Through Guardian And Nearest Suit Friend Pandey Vishwakarma, R/o Village Khursidih, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rakesh S/o Pandey Vishwakarma Aged About 20 Years Hearing Impaired, Through Guardian And Nearest Suit Friend Pandey Vishwakarma, R/o Village Khursidih, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Panch Ram S/o Late Sumeri Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khursidih, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Awadh Ram Yadav R/o Moudahapara, Birdi Gali, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 35/2014, whereby a total compensation of Rs. 7,48,125/- was awarded to the claimants on account of the untimely death of Smt. Shakuntala Vishwakarma in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20.12.2013, at approximately 8:00 PM, the deceased, Smt. Shakuntala Vishwakarma, along with her daughter, Ms. Mamta Vishwakarma, had proceeded on foot to attend the call of nature when they were suddenly struck by an offending vehicle, namely Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing Registration No. CG-04-C-2975. The vehicle, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the appellant-driver, caused grievous injuries to both victims, resulting in the immediate fatal injury to Smt. Shakuntala Vishwakarma, who succumbed during the course of medical treatment on 23.12.2013 at Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. Her daughter, Mamta Vishwakarma, sustained multiple injuries on her right leg, right hand, and 3 backside, initially treated at Government Hospital, Durg. The incident was duly reported at Police Station Pulgaon, where Crime No. 735/13 under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC was registered against the driver of the vehicle. The claimants further contended that the deceased, aged approximately 45 years, was a healthy woman earning Rs. 150/- per day, thereby contributing to the financial sustenance of the family. Consequently, they sought compensation of Rs. 20,17,000/- under various heads. In response, the appellant/driver and non-applicant No. 2 filed their written statements refuting the allegations by asserting that no such accident was caused by the said vehicle and denying liability on the ground that non-applicant No. 2 was not the registered owner. It was further contended that the claim petition was frivolous and deserved dismissal at the threshold. However, upon examination of the pleadings, evidence, and material brought on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adjudicated the matter and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,48,125/- to the claimants under different heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant driver respectfully submits that the impugned award dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is ex facie bad in law, contrary to the facts on record, and deserves to be set aside. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that all the claimants are major and, therefore, were not financially dependent on the 4 deceased, and hence, the assessment of compensation under the head of dependency is wholly unjustified. It is further submitted that the appellant, being merely the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, has been wrongly saddled with liability, whereas in law of torts, the liability, if any, is vicariously attributable solely to the registered owner of the vehicle and not upon the driver, who is only a formal party to the proceedings. The learned Tribunal has also committed a manifest error in awarding an excessively high compensation without any cogent evidence or material on record to justify such quantification. The monthly income of the deceased has been arbitrarily assessed at Rs. 4,500/- without any supporting documentary proof, thereby inflating the compensation impermissibly. Even otherwise, the compensation awarded is shockingly disproportionate and on the higher side, warranting suitable modification. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the award dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice. 4. It is respectfully submitted by the insurance company that the appeal filed by the appellant-driver is frivolous, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed. The impugned award dated 03.05.2018 has been passed by the learned Tribunal after due consideration of the facts, evidence, and applicable law. The 5 compensation awarded is fair, just, and in accordance with settled legal principles, including appropriate assessment of the deceased’s income and dependency. The objections raised by the appellant regarding liability, dependency, and quantification of compensation are baseless and unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, no interference is warranted, and the award deserves to be upheld in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned Council for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The primary issue pertains to the apportionment of liability between the appellant-driver and the registered owner, particularly when the owner has not filed any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. 7. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing learned counsel for both parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly held the appellant-driver negligent. However, the Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability upon the driver alone. 8. In law, it is well settled that liability for negligent driving of a motor vehicle is primarily vicarious, resting upon the registered owner. The driver, unless independently culpable beyond tortious liability, cannot be burdened solely. In the instant case, the registered 6 owner, though a party before the Tribunal, has not preferred any appeal nor challenged the award. Therefore, this Court holds that it is just and equitable to apportion the liability equally between the appellant-driver and the registered owner. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court concludes that the appellant-driver cannot be held solely responsible to indemnify the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 03.05.2018 is modified to the extent that the liability for payment of the awarded compensation of Rs. 7,48,125/- shall be borne jointly by the appellant-driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle. 10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA