1 2025:CGHC:5868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1612 of 2016 1. Kamlesh Verma S/o Manharan Verma, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Sirsahi, Post- Gatapar, Thana And Tahsil- Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ............… Driver 2. Rajbhan Lodhi S/o Ramhu Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Sirsahi, Post- Gatapar, Thana And Tahsil- Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.… Owner ... Appellants versus 1. Ghansyam Verma S/o Late Ramsukh Verma, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Takam, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, At Present- R/o Village- Indamara, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ............… Claimant 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Regional Office Kamathi Line, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .............… Insurance Co. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order On Board Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.02.05 10:27:26 +0530 2 31/01/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the driver and owner under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.19/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.3,48,419/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimant and against the appellants. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short was that on 03.11.2012, claimant Ghanshyam Verma and his nephew Pukhraj Verma had gone to village Thelkadih on a Hero Honda motorcycle. While returning from there, due to rain and mud, they were bringing the motorcycle on foot. At about 7:30 p.m. appellant Kamlesh Verma driving the offending vehicle i.e. mini bus bearing registration No.CG 08 B 5067 rashly and negligently dashed claimant Ghanshyam Verma, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and his left leg got fractured at 2-3 places. He was first taken to Govt. Hospital, Rajnandgaon then he was shifted to Sharda Hospital for better treatment where he was admitted for about 30 days. Therefore, the claimant preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.16,03,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,48,419/- in favour of the injured claimant with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability finding breach of policy conditions and saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon owner & driver of the offending vehicle against which the present appeal has been preferred by the driver and the registered owner. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the accident took place on 3/11/2012 and the report of which was lodged on 16/05/2013, i.e. after 06 months. The injured Ghanshyam Verma himself presented an application Ex.D-3 before the Superintendent of Police stating that his accident was caused by truck No. CG-04- 0843. Thus, the mini bus was not involved in the accident, yet, the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the mini bus, which is not appropriate in the light of the evidence presented and the law and it is not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned award passed against them should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability 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. The claim was filed by Ghanshyam Verma for the injury he sustained in the accident, stating that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle i.e. minibus No. CG-08-B-5067. The Tribunal found that the insurance conditions were violated in driving the vehicle, so the insurance company was exonerated from its liability and the driver Kamlesh Verma and the vehicle owner Rajbhan Lodhi were held liable for compensation. 7. From the evidence presented by both the parties and on perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the accident is said to have taken place on 03/11/2012, but its report Ex. P-2 was lodged on 16/05/2013 i.e. after about 06 months, by Ghanshyam Verma, giving the reason for the delay that he had lodged the report after getting treatment. It is noteworthy that after complete investigation by the Police, a charge sheet was filed against Kamlesh Verma as 4 the driver of the said offending vehicle i.e. mini bus No. CG-08-B- 5067. It is not reflected from the evidence presented that the appellants have challenged the said charge sheet anywhere. 8. The Tribunal, while discussing the evidence in paragraphs - 10 to 14 of its award, has held that the application Ex. D-3 presented by the appellant side under the Right to Information Act has not been duly proved. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, Ghanshyam Verma has denied the fact that he had given the said application to the Superintendent of Police. The fact that it bears the signature of Ghanshyam has also not been brought into evidence by the appellant party. Injured Ghanshyam Verma has not even been confronted with the said application Ex. D-3. No statement of any officer or employee of the Office of concerned Superintendent of Police has been recorded in this regard that the application was duly given by Ghanshyam Verma to the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon. 9. In this situation, the appellant party, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, have failed to establish the fact that injured Ghanshyam Verma has stated that he got injured in an accident with a truck. Based on the above evidence analysis, the application Ex. D-3 has not been found to be proved by the Tribunal and on the basis of the evidence presented by the claimant party and the final report of the Police, it has been concluded that injured Ghanshyam Verma got injured in the accident caused by the offending vehicle i.e. mini bus. The said conclusion of the Tribunal is not contrary to the pleadings and evidence available on record. In this situation, the argument of the appellant party that their mini bus (offending vehicle) was not involved in the accident in which injured Ghanshyam Verma got injured is not acceptable. 5 10. In that view of the matter, the argument of the appellant party is not found acceptable. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the award in question. 11. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as not acceptable. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai