1 2025:CGHC:28723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 387 of 2018 1 - Smt. Ramila Bai Wd/o Late Itwar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Risadi, Post Durpa, Police Station Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Shanti D/o Late Itwar Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Risadi, Post Durpa, Police Station Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Laxmi D/o Late Itwar Singh Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No.01 Smt. Ramila Bai, R/o Village Risadi, Post Durpa, Police Station Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Mohan Singh S/o Ramnath Singh R/o House No. M-865, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raj Gaurav Varma S/o Chandra Prakash R/o 12 Kholi Sarkari Niwas, Ware House Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Royal Sundram General Insurance Company 2 Limited, Chanwala Complex, Mejani Floor, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 362 of 2018 1 - Pankaj Kumar Gupta S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Gevra Basti Kusmunda, Police Station Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Mohan Singh S/o Ramnath Singh R/o House No. M-865, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, Police Station Kusmunda, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba, Chhattigarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raj Gaurav Varma S/o Chandra Prakash R/o 12 Kholi Sarkari Niwas, Ware House Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, Chanwala Complex, Mejani Floor, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anupam Dubey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2018 – an aplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (In MAC No.387 of 2018). 101 days delay. 3 2. Also heard on I.A. No.01/2018 – an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (In MAC No.362 of 2018). Delay of 103 days. 3. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 101 days and 103 days in filing the appeals are hereby condoned respectively. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. Admit. 6. Since these two appeals are arising out of the same accident dated 09.01.2013, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 7. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No.71/13 and Claim Case No.69/13 respectively dated 06.05.2013 wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal hence appellants preferred these appeals. 8. Facts of the present cases, in nutshell, are that on 9/01/2013 at about 12.30 a.m., in the night, near the flyover bridge on Main Road, Kusmanda, Raj Gaurav Varma/Respondent No.2 while driving the Alto Car No. CG 10 FA 3782, owned by Respondent 4 No.1 and insured by Respondent No.3, rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle of deceased Lagan Singh. 9. In MAC No.387 of 2018 :- Due to the accident, the deceased, namely, Lagan Singh fell on the road and died later. As a result of which, the applicants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have submitted this application for compensation of Rs. 23,50,000/- along with 9% interest in various heads against the non-applicants, on account of the death of the deceased. Hence this appeal. 10.In MAC No.362 of 2018 :- Due to said accident, the injured, namely, Pankaj Kumar Gupta and his two other companions fell on the road and Lagan Singh died and the applicant ( In MAC No.362 of 2018) suffered serious injuries in his legs and body, as a result of which the applicant has submitted this application against the respondents (Driver, Owner and the Insurance Company) for getting compensation amounting to Rs. 19,50,000/- along with interest in various heads. Hence this appeal. 11.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in arbitrarily and illegally dismissing the claim applications. The Tribunal incorrectly concluded that vehicle Nos. CG 10 FA 3782 and CG 12 FA 3782 are two different vehicles, despite clear documentary evidence in the charge sheet and pleadings indicating they refer to the same 5 vehicle. This crucial fact was overlooked by the Tribunal, which significantly impacted its findings and the resultant award. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in relying on selective portions of the evidence to arrive at a conclusion that two different vehicles were involved. The eye-witness, Pankaj Kumar Gupta (AW-02), did mention two different registration numbers during his testimony; however, his statement reflects inconsistency and lack of certainty with regard to the correct registration number of the offending vehicle. It is also pertinent to note that while the charge sheet mentions the vehicle as CG 10 FA 3782, the FIR does not specify any registration number at all. Additionally, Smt. Raomila Bai (AW-01) clearly stated that she was not an eye-witness to the accident and that her knowledge of the incident was based solely on what was conveyed to her by Pankaj Kumar Gupta. 12.It is further submitted that one Hiralal Dhruv, who is posted as a Data Entry Operator at the RTO, Bilaspur, was examined as a witness; however, his testimony did not establish the involvement of the vehicle in question in the alleged accident. Based on the overall evidence on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the claimants failed to prove the occurrence of the accident as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG10-FA-3782. The Tribunal held that in the absence of proof of the accident and identification of the offending vehicle, the question of awarding compensation does 6 not arise. Consequently, the claim petitions filed by the dependents of the deceased Late Lagan Singh and the injured claimant Pankaj Kumar Gupta were dismissed. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside. The present appeal deserves to be allowed and appropriate compensation ought to be granted in favour of the appellants, in the interest of justice. 13.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly arrived at the conclusion that the claimants failed to establish the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle. Therefore, the dismissal of the claim petitions filed on behalf of Lagan Singh (deceased) and Pankaj Kumar Gupta does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and considered their rival submissions advanced by the claimants. 15.From the arguments and from the perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the involvement 7 of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG10-FA-3782 (Alto Car) has not been proved. It is also not proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the accident took place and deceased Lagan Singh died on the spot. 16.In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings and approach adopted by the Tribunal. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal’s conclusions are based on a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and therefore do not warrant any interference. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. 17.As a result, both appeals, one filed by the legal heirs of Lagan Singh and the other by Pankaj Kumar Gupta are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA