1 2026:CGHC:8970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1472 of 2018 Devendra Kumar Lahre S/o Shri Kholbahara Lal @ K. N. G. Lahre Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Hasdev Vihar Colony, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Bhaiyalal Yadav, R/o House No. 1019 Bhaiya Lal Mohalla, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office D. Commercial Complex T P Nagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.61/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the injured claimant. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.23 17:49:00 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 24.02.2014, while he was driving Bolero bearing registration No. CG-12-TO-0254 from Banari to Janjgir, near the rice mill at Village Banari, the Matador bearing registration No. CG-12-ZB-0296 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his Bolero, resulting in grievous injuries to him. He underwent surgery on his right hand, arm, shoulder, elbow and wrist and claimed to have incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.82,292/-. It was further pleaded that he spent Rs.66,870/- towards repair of his Bolero vehicle and suffered business loss. On the aforesaid grounds, the claimant Devendra Kumar Lahre sought compensation of Rs.1,84,162/- from the non- applicants jointly and severally. 3. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award, held that the claimant-Devendra Kumar Lahre failed to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the concerned driver in the manner alleged and consequently dismissed the claim petition filed by claimant Devendra Kumar Lahre. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition by holding that rash and negligent driving was not 3 established, as the said finding is contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the FIR, charge-sheet, and other documents filed by the claimant clearly demonstrate the involvement and negligence of the driver of the offending Matador vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the medical records, bills and repair receipts substantiating the injuries sustained and the expenditure incurred by the appellant, and adopted a hyper-technical approach while assessing negligence, which is impermissible in claim proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation as claimed. 5. I have heard and considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of claim case. 6. In so far as Claim filed by claimant Devendra Kumar Lahre under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is concerned, the foundational requirement of proving rash and negligent driving was not satisfactorily established. Though the FIR and medical documents were brought on record and grievous injuries were proved, the claimant failed to substantiate Issue No.1 relating to negligence in the manner pleaded. Contradictions in the pleadings and evidence, coupled with the absence of cogent material to establish exclusive negligence of the alleged offending vehicle, were duly considered by the Tribunal. Once negligence under Section 166 of 4 the M.V. Act was not proved, the claim petition was liable to fail. The Tribunal has also recorded a categorical finding that in view of violation of policy conditions and absence of proof of valid driving licence and permit, the Insurance Company, cannot be fastened with liability. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact in the impugned award. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles and do not call for interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. The Registry is directed to sent back the original record of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/ - Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh