Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28654 (CHH)

GANESHU SAHU v. LAKHANLAL KHATKAR

MAC/1475/2023 · 2026-07-22

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010273672023 2026:CGHC:31603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1475 of 2023 1 - Ganeshu Sahu S/o Aghori Sahu Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Silyari, Tahsil And Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (Now District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh) (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Lakhanlal Khatkar S/o Kudlu Singh Khatkar Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Lendhra Chhote, Tahsil And Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (Now District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh) (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-13-Ag-6017) 2 - The Manager United India Insurance Company, Shanti Palace, Near Sarla Villa, Chakradharnagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Gajanand, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (23.07.2026) 1. This is the claimant’s appeal against the award dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 53/2021, whereby the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.24 17:22:24 +0530 2 2. As per the appellant, brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2021 at about 1:30 pm, the appellant was travelling in the offending auto rickshaw bearing registration No. CG-13-AG- 6017, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 – Lakhanlal and while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, it turned turtle, due to which the appellant sustained grievous multiple injuries. Hence, a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act has been filed claiming a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the claim petition on the erroneous ground that the claimant failed to prove the factum of the accident due to a lack of independent witnesses. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant, being an eyewitness to the incident, explicitly proved how the accident occurred. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for assessment of compensation in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 6. Upon scrutinizing the evidence on record, the Tribunal observed that despite the claimant’s assertion of total disablement and incapacity to work, no cogent documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim beyond the oral testimonies of the claimant and AW-2 (Gopal Sahu). In cross-examination, AW-2 conceded that no FIR was lodged, no report was made to Emergency Response Support System (112), no statement was recorded by the police, and no written notice for compensation was served upon the driver of the offending vehicle. Consequently, the Tribunal noted the complete absence of official records—such as an FIR, investigation report, spot map, panchnama, injury report, or contemporaneous medical records. 3 Holding the oral testimony to be unreliable and uncorroborated by documentary proof, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Auto No. CG-13-AG-6017. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is apparent that no documentary evidence is available on record to substantiate that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the vehicle or that the appellant sustained the said injuries in any accident. As such, this Court finds that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence; there is no infirmity in the impugned award warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu