1 2025:CGHC:53558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2117 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, Government Of Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Car No. C.G. 02 A.G.0011) 2 - The Superintendent Chhattisgarh State Garage, Behind Kali Mandir, Akashwani Chowk, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle Car No. C.G.02 A.G. 0011) ... Appellants Versus 1 - Madhvi Chandrakar Widow Of Late Prakash Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Of Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan, Police Station Patan District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Vedika Chandrakar (Minor) D/o Late Prakash Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 4 Years (Respondent No. 2 Is Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Madhvi Chanrakar) R/o Village Of Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan, Police Station Patan District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Basant Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ratan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan Police Station Patan District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Lata Bai Chandrakar W/o Basant Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Of Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan, Police Station Patan District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Mehul Chandrakar S/o Santosh Chandrakar, Resident Of Village Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. CG 07 LX 9785) 6 - Deepak Kumar Chandrakar S/o Basant Chandrakar, Resident Of Village Loharsi, Post Office Tarra, Tehsil Patan, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. CG 07 Of LX 9785) 7 - Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Officer In Charge, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Fifth Floor, Office No. 501, 509, 512, D.B.City Corporate Park, Plot No.1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No.CG 07 LX 9785) 8 - Shriram Netam S/o Ramadhar Netam, Resident Of Village Funda, Ward No. 19, Police Station Patan District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Car No. CG 02 AG 0011) ... Respondents Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.11.04 10:20:42 +0530 2 For Appellants/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ Claimants For Respondents No. 5 & 6/ Driver and Owner of Motorcycle For Respondent No. 7/ Insurer of Motorcycle For Respondent No. 8/ Driver of the Offending Car : : : : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 03/11/2025 1. The appellants/State has filed this appeal challenging award passed by the learned IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 833/2022 dated 09.07.2024, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 40,83,600/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Prakash Kumar Chandrakar. 2. The brief facts are that respondent No. 5 – Mehul Chandrakar was ridding motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 LX 9785 and deceased - Prakash Kumar Chandrakar was pillion rider. On 17.08.2022, the rider and pillion rider of motorcycle fell down on a road and at the same time, respondent No. 8 – Shriram Netam, driver of Car bearing registration No. CG 02 AG 0011 by driving it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Prakash Kumar Chandrakar who was on road, resultantly, Prakash Kumar Chandrakar sustained injuries and died on spot. 3. The claimants who are widow, minor child and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and 3 claimed a sum of Rs.55,74,000/-. The appellants/State and Insurer of motorcycle took plea that the deceased himself was negligent and the claimants have exaggerated the income of the deceased. The driver of the offending car stated that the car was not involved in the accident and the driver of the motorcycle was not having effective and valid licence. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 4. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the appellants/State would argue that deceased- Prakash Kumar Chandrakar sustained injuries as he fell down from the motorcycle which was being driven by respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently. He would contend that the offending car was not involved in the accident at all. He would submit that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending car. He would further contend that as the driver of the motorcycle did not have valid driving licence, therefore, the claimants implicated the car to get handsome compensation. He would argue that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have fastened liability with the Insurance Company of the motorcycle as the deceased was pillion rider on it and he died due rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability upto extent of 60% on the State. He would pray to set aside award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 5. Mr. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7/Insurer of the motorcycle would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law by fastening liability upto extent of 40% on the Insurance Company as the learned Claims Tribunal has 4 recorded a finding that there was negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. She would submit that the cause of death was injuries sustained by the deceased in car accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have fastened liability with the appellants/State. 6. Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8/Driver of offending car would contend that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending car and the deceased himself was responsible for negligence. 7. Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6/driver and owner of the motorcycle would contend that the deceased succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained in accident caused by the offending car. 8. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 4/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has recorded specific finding that in a accident which occurred on 17.08.2022, Prakash Kumar Chandrakar sustained injuries and died. With regard to liability of offending car and motorcycle, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that the driver of the car was liable upto extent of 60%, whereas the driver of motorcycle upto 40%. 11. According to contents of F.I.R. and evidence of NAW-1 Sriram Netam, the driver of the motorcycle was driving it rashly and negligently and on speed-breaker, due to jerk, pillion rider Prakash Kumar Chandrakar fell 5 down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. In F.I.R. it is also stated that at the same time, the offending car was coming from back side and its driver by driving rashly and negligently could not apply break and crushed the deceased who was lying on the road. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that there was 40% negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle who was driving it rashly and negligently and 60% negligence on the part of driver of the offending car as he had sufficient opportunity to apply break of the vehicle, but he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he crushed the deceased. The drivers of the motorcycle and the car could not lead clinching evidence to rebut such presumption and the findings recorded the learned Claims Tribunal including the contents of the F.I.R.. In my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly fastened liability upto extent of 60% with the appellants herein and 40% with the insurer of the motorcycle. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in fastening the liability. 13. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The appellants/State and Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited are directed to satisfy the award, if already not satisfied within period of 60 days from today, failing which, the amount of compensation shall carry penal interest of 18% per annum. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti