1 2026:CGHC:20145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1873 of 2019 1 – Manmati, W/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste - Gond, R/o. Village - Akhorakala, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Moti Lal, S/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste - Gond, R/o. Village - Akhorakala, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ajay Kumar, S/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 19 Years, By Caste- Gond, R/o. Village - Akhorakala, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ….Claimants --- Appellants versus 1 - Parmanand @ Vishnu Rajwade, S/o. Ramsharan Rajwade, Aged About 20 Years, Caste - Rajwar, R/o. Village - Akhorakala, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Mohan Ram Rajwade, S/o. Chamar Sai Rajwade, Aged About 60 Years (Dead) (Owner) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.05.01 14:24:36 +0530 2 2.(A). Kendi Bai, W/o. Late Mohan, Aged About 60 Years, Caste - Rajwar, R/o. Village - Akhorakala, Police Chowki- Latori, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate & MAC No. 82 of 2020 1 - Kendi Bai, Wd/o. Late Mohan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o. Village Akhora Kala, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ........Owner. 2 - Parmanad @ Vishnu Rajwade, At Present Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Akhora Kala, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. …….Driver ---Appellants Versus 1 – Manmati, W/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village Akhora Kala, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ......Claimant No.1 2 – Motilal, S/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Akhora Kala, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ........Claimant No. 2 3 - Ajay Kumar, S/o. Late Nansai, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Village Akhora Kala, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. .....Claimant No. 3 3 4 - (Deleted) Parmanand @ Vishnu Rajwade. As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated. 10/06/2024. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No.112/2016, the claimants have preferred MAC No. 1873/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount of award, whereas the owner & driver of the vehicle has preferred MAC No.82/2020 seeking exoneration from liability to pay the compensation. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned 4 Claims Tribunal is not just and proper, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the driver & owner of the offending vehicle, would submit that vehicle was not involved in the accident, therefore, liability has wrongly been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and, as such, it deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Though the submission has been made on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle that the vehicle was not involved in the accident in question, but the owner has not entered into the witness box to make statement before the Court that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. However, Pramanand (driver of the vehicle) has made statement before the Court that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, however, he has admitted in the cross- examination that he has not questioned the registration of offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C against him and he has not made a complaint against the police for implicating him as an accused for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Since the owner of the vehicle has neither entered into the witness box nor he raised 5 objection before any jurisdictional Court/ Tribunal that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and falsely involved for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and furthermore, offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. has also also been registered against the driver vide Ex.P-1 and he has been prosecuted for that offence, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the owner & driver of the vehicle and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. So far as the appeal of the claimants is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, which is just & proper, therefore, no interference is called for. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of claimants & appeal of owner & driver, both are dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok