1 CGHC010366722023 2026:CGHC:37244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1982 of 2023 1 - Bhupendra Pratap Singh S/o Rajpratap Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o New Mines, Podi, Thana Podi, District Koriya (C.G.) (Owner),....(Non-Applicant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Purshottam Jaiswal S/o Babulal Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Nagpur, Thana Podi, District - Koriya (C.G.),...(Applicant / Claimant) 2 - Lalita W/o Purushottam Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Nagpur, Thana Podi, District - Koriya (C.G.),...(Applicant / Claimant) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Raj Sinha, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ram Sajiwan, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/owner/driver challenging the impugned award dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 11:04:25 +0530 2 Claim Case No. 33/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,26,000/- in favour of the claimants/respondents for the death of Rahul Jaiswal on account of an accident that occurred on 14.06.2020. 2. Briefly stated, the claim petition sets out that on 14.06.2020 at around 8:00 PM, the deceased, Rahul Jaiswal, was returning home on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG-15-DA- 5033, accompanied by his friend Omprakash. Near ITI College, Pauri, on the main road, the appellant/driver, Bhupendra Pratap Singh, while driving his Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number CG-16-CA-1746 in a rash and negligent manner, struck Rahul Jaiswal’s motorcycle, causing an accident. In the accident, Rahul Jaiswal sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them during treatment. 3. The Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants, holding the driver-owner of the offending vehicle liable for negligence; however, the liability for payment was placed on the appellant because the vehicle lacked a valid insurance policy. 4. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no rashness or negligence on his part. Although eyewitness Om Prakash stated that the appellant was intoxicated, he admitted during cross- examination that he had not actually smelled the appellant’s breath. Another argument raised was that the appellant’s Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-16-CA-1746 was parked at his in-laws' house in Domanhill from where it was 3 subsequently seized and was in a non-functional condition; thus, it was not being driven on the road on the date in question. Consequently, it was argued that the appeal should be allowed and the Tribunal's order may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same and submits that the impugned award is based on proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference. 6. Om Prakash (AW-2), as an eyewitness, established the appellant's rashness and negligence, and the police charge sheet also implicates the appellant/driver-owner. An FIR was registered against the offending vehicle (Exhibit A-1), and Om Prakash's testimony remained uncontradicted. The appellant/driver-owner admitted that a criminal case is pending against him in the court at Baikunthpur with regard to the accident. In light of these facts, there is no error in the Tribunal's finding that the vehicle was involved in the incident and that the appellant, as the driver-owner, was guilty of rashness and negligence. 7. Thus, looking to the evidence available on record, the order impugned is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and does not call for any interference and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- SD Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu