1 2025:CGHC:958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 395 of 2019 Smt. Tahira Parveen W/o Shri Jafar Ali Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Chichola, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh...........(Owner Of Mini Bus No. C.G.-07/Z.A.2006)............(Non-Applicant No.2) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Nira Bai Wd/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Diwanbhedi, Tahsil And Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Applicant No.1) 2 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nishad Aged About 17 Years Minor- Through His Mother Nira Bai Wd/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nishad, R/o Village Diwanbhedi, Tahsil And Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Applicant No.2) 3 - Vyenkateshwar S/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nishad Aged About 15 Years Minor- Through His Mother- Nira Bai Wd/o Late Shri Nelknath Nishad, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Diwanbhedi, Tahsil And Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Applicant No.3) 4 - Ku. Domeshwari D/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nishad Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Diwanbhedi, Tahsil And Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Applicant No.4) 5 - Jamuna Bai Wd/o Late Shri Baliram Nishad Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Diwanbhedi, Tahsil And Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Applicant No.5) 6 - Dharamdas Lilhare S/o Shri Ghirandas Lilhare Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Makranpur, Post- Sitagota, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............(Driver Of Mini Bus No. C.G. 07/Z.A.-2006) (Non-Applicant No.1) ... Respondent(s) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.09 17:37:00 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 5 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the legality and propriety of award dated 17.12.2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargah to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.39/2010, by which the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle/appellant. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, on 26.11.2010 at about 11.00 am, Neelkanth Nishad (deceased) was going to his native village Diwanbhedi by his Motor Cycle Bajaj Boxer bearing registration No.CG 09-A-2164 and when he reached near Gajmarra Nala, one mini bus bearing registration No.CG 07 ZA 2006 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven by respondent No.6/Dharam Das, hit the motor cycle of Neelkanth, as a result of which, Neelkanth sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. By filing application under Section 166 of the Act 1988, the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 sought compensation from non-applicants. Vide impugned award dated 17.12.2018, the learned Claim Tribunal partly allowed the application filed by the claimants and directed the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,49,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till date of payment of amount 3 of compensation to the claimants. By filing this appeal, the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, has challenged the award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged incident occurred when the motor cycle being driven by deceased Neelkanth collided with the offending vehicle/mini bus from behind. He further submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was moving and the deceased came from behind riding motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the mini bus from behind. He further submits that driver of the offending vehicle was not aware that the deceased was coming behind the offending vehicle. This fact has been proved by the appellant and the driver in their deposition, despite that, the same has been discarded by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that since there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the driver/Dharamdas Lilhare has been acquitted vide judgment dated 06.01.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No.650/2010. But the Tribunal has not considered aforesaid fact & evidence and 100% liability has been fastened upon the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed, impugned award as also application filed by the respondents/claimants be rejected. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the motor cycle driven by the deceased did not hit the offending vehicle from behind, rather driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently, as such, it hit the motor cycle, thereby accident occurred. She further submits that it has not been established by the appellant that the accident occurred due to collusion of motor cycle from behind the mini bus. Even Driver Dharamdas (NAW-2) has stated that the motor cycle collided 4 with rear wheel of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned award does not call for any interference of this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal and the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle mini bus was not insured on the date of incident and the accident occurred because of the collusion of mini bus with the motor cycle. 7. Perusal of the certified copy of the charge sheet and other documents of Criminal Case No.650/2010 filed with charge sheet show that the accident did not occur because of collusion of motor cycle from behind the mini bus, rather the accident occurred because of collusion of motor cycle from rear wheel of the mini bus. Even the appellant/Tahira Parveen (NAW-1) and the driver of the mini bus Dharam Das (NAW-2) themselves have not stated such fact in their deposition that the accident occurred in aforesaid manner, i.e. by collusion behind the mini bus. Rather driver Dharamdas (NAW-2) himself has stated in his deposition that the accident occurred because of collusion of the motor cycle with rear wheel of the mini bus. 8. Although in the criminal case arose from said accident bearing Criminal Case No.650/10, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh has acquitted the driver/Dharamdas from the offence under Section 304A IPC giving him the benefit of doubt, but only on this count, contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained as the learned tribunal has rightly held that in criminal case, standard of proof of the case should be beyond reasonable doubt, whereas such strict proof is not required in the MACT case. 9. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was responsible in any manner or in any count for the cause of said accident. 5 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 17.10.201 passed by the Claims tribunal. 11. To conclude, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini