1 2026:CGHC:20956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2313 of 2019 1 - Vimal Kumar S/o. Gokul Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o. Mahurbandpara, Kanker, Thana And District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Claimant), 2 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o. Vimal Kumar Aged About 53 Years R/o. Mahurbandpara, Kanker, Thana And District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Claimant), --- Appellants versus 1 - Ritu @ Seema Hirdani W/o. Gaggu Hirdani Aged About 42 Years R/o. Annapurnapara, Thana, Tahsil And District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Possession Holder Of Offending Vehicle), 2 - Kamendra Giri S/o. Suryabhan Giri Aged About 42 Years R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), 3 - Ashok Kumar Meghani S/o. Krishnachand Meghani, R/o. Harikunj, Samta Colony, Raipur, Thana, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : None. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None, though served. And KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.06 17:14:28 +0530 2 MAC No. 2089 of 2019 1 - Ashok Kumar Meghani S/o Krishnachand Meghani Aged About 58 Years R/o Harikunj, Samta Colony Raipur, Police Station Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ritu @ Sima Hirdani W/o Gaggu Hirdani Aged About 42 Years R/o Annapurna Para Kanker, Police Station, Tahsil And District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) 2 - Kamendera Giri S/o Suryabhan Giri Aged About 42 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Kanker, District North Baster, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3 - Vimal Kumar S/o Gokul Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Mahurbandpara Kanker, Police Station And District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Vimal Kumar Aged About 53 Years R/o Mahurbandpara Kanker, Police Station And District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05/05/2026 3 MAC No. 2313 of 2019 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant in two rounds. No representation was made. 2. In the circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. MAC No. 2089 of 2019 3. The appellant/owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 15.10.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar District Kanker (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.25/1996 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- has been fastened on the appellant. 4. Mr. DN Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not owner of the offending vehicle and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability on the appellant. As such, the appellant be exonerated. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Undisputedly, vehicle was unregistered vehicle on the date of the accident. However, perusal of Ex.-P/4-A would show that appellant has purchased vehicle from Fouzdar Farm Equipments on 23.2.93 and thereafter a document has also been annexed 4 along with Ex.-P/4-A, which is the sale letter in favour of the appellant. Thereafter by a document (Ex.-P/5), it was certified by Fouzdar Farm Equipments that the appellant has purchased the vehicle. 7. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 8. For the foregoing, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve