Dismissed

Smt Fulmat v. Manoj Singh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2025MAC/144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by survivors against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award rejecting death compensation claim. High Court upheld tribunal's dismissal noting FIR cited unknown vehicle, no eyewitness identified driver, and prima facie material was insufficient to prove negligence.

What did the court decide?

Append appeal dismissed; claim for compensation rejected on merits based on insufficient evidence linking specific defendant to accident.

Smt Fulmat Vs Manoj Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 144 of 2018

¶5

Judgment Reserved on: 11.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 23.07.2025

¶6

1 - Smt Fulmat Wd/o Late Gogal Aged About 70 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Jagatpur, Post Barbaspur, P.S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Ram Lal S/o Patiraj Aged About 18 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Jagatpur, Post Barbaspur, P.S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Udraj S/o Gogal Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Jagatpur, Post Barbaspur, P.S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Indrapal S/o Gogal Aged About 48 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Jagatpur, Post Barbaspur, P.S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Manoj Singh S/o Gulab Singh Tekam Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Karhiyadand (Dhodhibahara), P.S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶11

¶12

2 - Virendra Singh S/o Bahadur Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Machbandha (Salka), Bhandarpara, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manendra Road, Near Abedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Smt. Chandrawati W/o Rajjan Sai R/o Village Ratga, P.S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) Nos.	: Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate on behalf
1 & 2	of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha,
	Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

C A V Judgment

¶18

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 22/2016 (“Smt. Fulmat & Ors. vs. Manoj Singh & Ors.”) .

¶19

Brief facts of the case, is that, on 09.06.2015, deceased Mahipal was travelling as a pillion rider along with Manoj Singh on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-16 CI-4100 from

¶20

¶21

Jagatpur to Baikunthpur, when the respondent No.1, driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost his control and dashed the vehicle against a bridge, resulting in the death of Mahipal. An FIR was lodged and a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1 before the Criminal Court. It was stated that the deceased was aged about 45 years old and worked as a labourer and agriculturist, and the claimants, being his dependents, sought a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle denied the incident and claimed that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and was driven with a valid license. The insurance company i.e. respondent No.3 denied liability citing a breach of policy. Respondent No. 4 i.e. wife of the deceased has filed a written statement stating that she had remarried and was not dependent on the deceased. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal vide its impugned award dated 25.10.2017 held that the appellants failed to prove that the death occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, and accordingly, rejected the claim, giving rise to the present appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition merely on the ground that, as per the FIR, the accident was caused by an

¶23

¶24

unknown vehicle and that the claimants have failed to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, Manoj Singh. He further submits that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of proof is not as stringent as in criminal trials; therefore, the claimants were not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There exists prima facie material, including the FIR and the final report has filed after due investigation, which implicates that respondent No.1 and is sufficient to establish negligence. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company , reported in 2025 SCC Online SC-992, wherein it was held that even in the absence of an eyewitness, an FIR and charge-sheet can be sufficient to establish negligence. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess any compensation and instead dismissed the petition outright, which has caused grave injustice to the claimants. Therefore, it was urged that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded for proper assessment of just compensation.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the Insurance Company has rightly been held not liable for compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal as the premium to cover the risk of

¶26

¶27

the pillion rider was not paid, thereby violating policy conditions. He further submits that the accident itself has not been proved by the claimants, as the FIR lodged by AW-1 Indrapal refers to an unknown vehicle and not the alleged motorcycle, and AW-2 Rampal, who was projected as an eyewitness, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accident. The postmortem report also only mentions that the injury may be accidental, without giving a definitive opinion. He further submits that the statement in the claim petition that the deceased was a pillion rider is contradicted by the FIR, which states that Mahipal was walking to obtain domicile and caste certificates. Therefore, in view of the contradictions, lack of credible eyewitnesses, and absence of coverage for a pillion rider under the insurance policy, the Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the claim and rejected the petition, which requires no interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

From the perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/2), it is evident that the report was lodged against an unknown person in connection with the death of Mahipal. During the course of investigation, one Manoj Singh Tekam was made an accused, and a case under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered against him. A chargesheet was also filed under the same section. However, Indrapal (AW-1), the

¶30

¶31

person who lodged the FIR, categorically stated that he was not an eyewitness to the incident and, therefore, could not identify the person driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly held that it had not been proved which vehicle was the offending vehicle. Since the FIR mentioned an unknown vehicle and no material evidence was produced to establish that the offending vehicle was Motorcycle No. 16-CE-4100, the Tribunal concluded that the claim could not be sustained on this basis. Considering the entire circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, as no illegality or perversity has been shown in its decision.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby

¶33

dismissed .

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶36

Judge

¶37

Raghu Jat

Smt Fulmat v. Manoj Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Fulmat v. Manoj Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Azeem Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyandeo Bhoy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagatnarayan Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahdev Lodhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

U.S. Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh