This Single Judge Bench dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order denying compensation. The Court held the accident was due to self-negligence, no other driver's negligence was proved, and the claim under Section 166 was not maintainable.
Appeal dismissed; impugned award of the Tribunal stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
M. A. (C) No.267 of 2015
For Appellants : Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate
(Proceedings through Video Conferencing) Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment o n Board
20.07.2021
2
referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No.33 of 2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
3
licence and offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company.
4
5
of negligence on the part of some other person. He further submits that learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claim based on the provisions, under which, application is filed and dismissed the same. It is contended that learned Tribunal has rightly taken into considering Final Report (Ex.P/1) and documents enclosed along with it, which are placed on record by the claimants themselves in support of their pleadings to arrive at a conclusion that there was no involvement of any other motor vehicle, nor negligence of the owner of the vehicle has been proved. It is further contended that application for amendment has rightly been dismissed by learned Tribunal, which was filed at the end of inquiry before the Tribunal.
6
road side and turned turtle. Similar fact has been narrated in the Final Report (Ex.P/1).
7
but in cross-examination itself, Smt. Ranjita Rajput (AW-1) stated that she was not present on the spot.
8
application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, income of deceased/victim should not be more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, hence, even otherwise, in view of income proved by appellants/claimants of the deceased, application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act will not be maintainable.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Yogesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident resulted from the deceased's own self-negligence precluding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the application to amend the claim from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for personal accident coverage given the deceased was not a named person in the policy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and OthersRelied on¶14
(2007) 5 SCC 428 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Ranjita Rajput and Others
Smt. Ful Bai Chouhan
Universal Sompa General Insurance Company Limited
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
