1 2025:CGHC:38797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 296 of 2020 1- Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o. Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village- Kochera, Thana- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-A.T.-2764), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Applicant versus 1 - Abdul Rahim Khan S/o. Late Shri Enayat Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village- Salhebar Para Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raziya Begum W/o. Shri Abdul Rahim Khan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Salhebar Para Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Virendra Kumar S/o. Shri Dhansay Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village- Jawartala, Thana- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-A.T.-2764) 4 - Dayaram Sonwani S/o. Shri Teekaram Sonwani Aged About 54 Years R/o. Village- Selud, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mohd. Anis S/o. Shri Ali Ibrahim R/o. Makeshwar Ward Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.29 12:20:41 +0530 2 For Respondent(s) : None, though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 05.08.2025 1. Appellant-owner has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 20.12.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 151/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 by claimants seeking compensation, in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.06.2018 at about 1:45 pm when Shahnawaz Khan @ Sunny was riding his vehicle Activa bearing registration no. CG 05 V 7408, one truck bearing registration no. CG 07 AT 2764 dashed the vehicle Activa, which was being driven by Shahnawaz Khan and caused accident. In the said accident, Shahnawaz Khan suffered grievous injuries and was taken to hospital for treatment, after he died during the course of treatment. 3. Claimants, parents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 24,80,000/- against, death of their son on different heads and further pleaded therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 21 years. He was in private job and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 3 4. Non-applicants No. 1,2 & 3 filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the deceased met with an accident due to his own rash and negligent driving and thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim application filed against them. 5. Non-applicant No. 4 also filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that he had sold the two wheeler to claimant no. 1 father of the deceased and has handed over all the relevant documents to him, however, even after giving assurance, claimant no. 1/father of the deceased did not transfer his name in the records of the transport department and was merely using the vehicle, thus, he is not liable to pay compensation, if any. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased - Shahnawaz Khan died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 8,76,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non- applicant no. 1, non-applicant no.2(physical owner) and non-applicant no. 3(registered owner) of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-physical owner of the offending vehicle would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon appellant who is not recorded or registered owner of the offending vehicle, according to the facts of case, liability ought to have been 4 fastened upon registered owner only and not against the person who is in possession and command of the vehicle. He next contended that as there was collision between 02 vehicles, deceased also contributed to the accident which is also proved by evidence of NAW-02/Puranlal Sahu and, therefore, if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that appellant is also liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally with other two, the compensation be reduced to the extent of 50%. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the accident is concerned, perusal of reply filed on behalf of non-applicant no. 1,2 and 3 would show that they have taken a plea that the accident was result of negligence on part of the deceased also. To prove pleadings made in the claim application they have not examined either the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle. Driver could be the best person who could have proved the manner in which accident occurred and as to how the deceased was negligent in accident. However, for the reasons best known to Non- applicant no. 1 to 3 the driver of offending vehicle non-applicant no. 1 did not enter into the witness box. 10. So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant which is based on the evidence of Puranlal Sahu is concerned, though he claimed himself to be eye-witness of the accident, however, he has not given any information to Police during course of investigation. He is not a witness in criminal case as per charge-sheet filed by the Police Ex. P-01. In absence of the documentary evidence on record wherein Puranlal Sahu is shown to be an eye-witness to the accident, merely his oral 5 statement on behalf of any person could not be accepted as admissible evidence in the facts of the case and, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the evidence of NAW-02 in this regard. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that, accident occurred due to negligence on the part of non-applicant no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle and the said finding does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for appellant that, the deceased also contributed in said accident is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled. 12. So far as submission of counsel for appellant that liability to satisfy amount of compensation could only be against registered owner is concerned, true it is that registered owner is liable to pay amount of compensation, however, in view of evidence of appellant, who was examined as NAW-01 before the learned Claims Tribunal, wherein he admitted that he is owner of the offending vehicle and the driver is engaged by him, Claims Tribunal has fastened liability jointly and severally upon non-applicant no. 1 to 3. In the above facts of the case, I do not find any error in direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally upon driver, physical owner and registered owner of the offending vehicle. 13. For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- Alfiza (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge