1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1711 of 2018 Reverved On 01.12.2025 Delivered On 11/12/2025 1 - Pavan Kumar Patel S/o Dayaram Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Darri (Sarhar), Tahsil And Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dhannjay Rathore S/o Late Babulal Rathore Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Raja Para, Sakti, Tahsil And Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Near Manjhli Talab, Station Road Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Being aggrieved by the award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Third Additional Motor ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir–Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 83/2017. 2. Facts of the case :- The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, alleging that respondent No. 1, Dhannanjay Rathore, is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, a tractor bearing registration No. CG-11-A-2013 and trolley No. CG-11-A-2014, and respondent No. 2 is its insurer. On 06.01.2014, the appellant, Pavan Kumar Patel, along with his colleagues, travelled to Sakti in the said tractor- trolley, and while returning, upon reaching near Village Karibhanwar, the driver, Radhelal, handed over the vehicle to the appellant; however, the vehicle lost balance near a turning and overturned, causing the appellant grievous injuries on his hands and legs, rendering him unable to walk or perform his casual work. Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied the claim, contending that the appellant was not his driver and that a criminal case under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC had been registered against the appellant, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. Respondent No. 2, the insurance company, also denied the accident and further contended that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. At the time of the accident, the appellant, aged about 23 3 years, was stated to be a healthy person working as a driver and labourer earning Rs. 3,000 per month, and he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 9,88,000/- from the respondents. The learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues for adjudication, recorded evidence, heard the parties, and ultimately dismissed the claim petition, giving rise to the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is unsustainable in law, as the Tribunal has failed to properly marshal and appreciate the evidence adduced by the claimant. The Tribunal has not recorded any reasoned findings on Issues No. 2, 3, and 6, nor has it rendered conclusions on the exhibited documents placed on record, including medical bills and proof of income, thereby vitiating the award. The dismissal of the claim petition in such a perfunctory and formal manner is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication under the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates a liberal and justice-oriented approach in favour of the victim. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously set aside the impugned award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 83/2017, in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment, contending that the Tribunal had afforded 4 adequate opportunity of hearing and had rightly appreciated the evidence on record. It was argued that the appellant himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident without authority, and therefore no liability could be fastened either on the owner or the insurer. Hence, dismissal of the appeal was prayed for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is an admitted position that the accident occurred when the appellant himself was driving the tractor-trolley. Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claimant must prove that he is a third party or a victim of the use of the motor vehicle. In the present case, material on record, including the FIR and the charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC, clearly reflect that the appellant was the person driving the vehicle and that prosecution for rash and negligent driving is pending against him. In motor accident jurisprudence, an owner or insurer cannot be fastened with liability for injuries caused to a person who himself was driving the vehicle unauthorisedly and was the primary cause of the accident. The Tribunal’s finding on this core aspect suffers from no infirmity. 7. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings of the Tribunal. The plea that the Tribunal did not appreciate medical documents or income 5 proof is of no consequence because the foundational requirement for claiming compensation, proof of entitlement under Section 163-A, remains unfulfilled. Once it is established that the claimant himself was in control of the vehicle without authorization, no claim against the owner or the insurer can be maintained. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir–Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 83/2017 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena