Dismissed

Bhim Prasad Gupta v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta

Chhattisgarh HC8 Oct 2025MAC/1654/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals challenging the dismissal of motor accident compensation claims. The Court held that the appellants failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and the link between their injuries and the alleged collision, primarily due to the absence of original medical records and lack of corroborative evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by Bhim Prasad Gupta and Ramkishore Sinha were dismissed, and the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were affirmed.

Bhim Prasad Gupta Vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.10.16 14:23:57 +0530

2025:CGHC:50508

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1654 of 2017

¶7

Bhim Prasad Gupta S/o Late Sukru Sao, Aged About 47 Years Caste Rauniyar, R/o Village Patratoli, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Mukesh Kumar Gupta S/o Baldev Prasad Gupta, Aged About 34 Years, Caste Rauniyar R/o Village Patratoli, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Ravindra Kumar Gupta, S/o Bhim Prasad Gupta, Aged About 22 Years, Caste Rauniyar, R/o Village Patratoli, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Narendra Sinha, S/o Late Shyamsunder Sinha, Aged About 38 Years Caste Kayasth, R/o Village Patratoli, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gumla, Police Station And District Gumla Jharkhand

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

MAC No. 1066 of 2018

¶16

Ramkishore Sinha S/o Late Shyamsunder Sinha Aged About 46 Years Caste - Kayasth, R/o Village Patratoli, Police Station - Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellant

Versus

1 - Mukesh Kumar Gupta S/o Baldev Prasad Gupta Aged About 34 Years Caste - Rauniyar , R/o Village - Patratoli, Police Station - Duldula , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶21

2 - Ravindra Kumar Gupta S/o Bhim Prasad Gupta Aged About 22 Years Caste - Rauniyar , R/o Village - Patratoli, Police Station - Duldula , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶22

3 - Narendra Sinha S/o Late Shyamsunde Sinha Aged About 38 Years Caste - Kayasth , R/o Village - Patratoli, Police Station - Duldula , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶23

4 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager Branch Office, Gumla, Police Station And District Gumla (Jharkhand)

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶26

For Appellant (In MAC Nos.1654/2017 and 1066/2018)	: Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate
For Insurance	: Mr. Bennoon Sabbarwal, Advocate on behalf
Company (In MAC	of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate
Nos.1654/2017 and 1066/2018)

¶27

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶28

Judgment on Board

¶29

09.10.2025

¶30

1. Since both these appeals arise out of similar accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

¶31

2. MAC No.1654/2017 has been filed by the claimant Bhim Prasad Gupta challenging the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the

¶32

¶33

learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Claim Case No.16/2012 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimant.

¶34

3. Likewise, MAC No.1066/2018 has been filed by the claimant Ramkishore Sinha challenging the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Claim Case No.28/2010 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimant.

¶35

4. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 17.10.2007, Bhim Prasad Gupta along with one Ramkishore Sinha were traveling from Patratoli to Duldula on a Bajaj CT 100 Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-14-B-0625, which was owned by Narendra Kumar Sinha. They were proceeding to the residence of Mukesh Gupta to collect the motorcycle, a Hero Honda bearing registration No.CG-14-B-0527. When they reached near the village of Bhinjpur, at a small culvert, Mukesh Gupta, riding the said Hero Honda motorcycle No.CG-14-B-0527, with Ramesh Gupta as pillion, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle on which the claimants were traveling. As a result of the collision, both of the claimants, namely Bhim Prasad Gupta and Ramkishore Sinha fell down and sustained multiple serious injuries over their persons.

¶36

¶37

5. The claimants have filed a claim petitions bearing Claim Case Nos.16/2012 and 28/2010, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.39,34,144/- and Rs.41,31,500/- under various heads.

¶38

6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants holding that the claimants have failed to establish the fact that on the date, time, and place of the alleged accident, they sustained injuries, as a consequence of rash and negligent driving by Mukesh Kumar Gupta of motorcycle bearing No. CG-14-B0527, which allegedly collided with their motorcycle.

¶39

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned awards dated 23.06.2016 and 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal while dismissing the claim petitions are bad in law. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition in toto by holding that the claimants-appellants had not proved the factum of the accident beyond doubt, despite sufficient evidence on record. Learned counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the trial of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is summary in nature and that strict proof of the accident is not required. It is also argued that the occurrence of the accident is corroborated by the fact that a First Information Report was registered against Narendra Sinha and that he was

¶40

¶41

prosecuted before the Criminal Court. In addition, the Claims Tribunal failed to give due weight to the testimony of the appellant, who himself narrated the circumstances of the accident and the injuries suffered. Learned counsel further contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the medical documents submitted by the appellants/claimants, which reflected the treatment received at various hospitals for injuries sustained in the accident. As such, the appeals be allowed and impugned awards deserve to be set aside with appropriate compensation awarded to the appellants.

¶42

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the appeals are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal rightly held that the claimants failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and the link between the alleged injuries and the accident. Mere registration of an FIR or prosecution of the driver cannot establish the Company’s liability. The Claims Tribunal also rightly noted discrepancies in the appellants’ testimony and insufficiency of medical documents. Accordingly, the impugned awards are justified and deserve to be affirmed and maintained.

¶43

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully.

¶44

10. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the appellants have failed to establish, by cogent and

¶45

¶46

reliable evidence, that they sustained injuries as a consequence of rash and negligent driving by Mukesh Kumar Gupta of motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-14-B-0527, which allegedly collided with the motorcycle drove by the claimants. The evidence produced by the appellants, including oral testimony and photocopies of medical documents, is insufficient to conclusively establish the occurrence of the accident and the resulting injuries. Notably, the appellants have failed to produce the original medical records in support of their claims, which casts serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of the documents submitted.

¶47

11. In the absence of sufficient and reliable proof regarding the occurrence of the accident in the manner alleged, coupled with the appellants’ failure to produce the original medical documents in support of their claims, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation from the non-applicants. The photocopies of medical records and other documents produced by the appellants are inadequate to substantiate the alleged injuries and treatment. The lack of original documents, along with the absence of any corroborative evidence, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the claims made by the appellants. This deficiency, when considered in the context of the total evidence on record, clearly demonstrates that the claim is devoid of merit, and the Tribunal’s

¶48

¶49

conclusion in this regard cannot be said to be erroneous or unsustainable.

¶50

12. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material error in the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeals (MAC Nos.1654/2017 and 1066/2018), being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. The awards passed by the learned Claims Tribunal are hereby affirmed.

¶51

13. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be remitted forthwith along with a certified copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶54

Yogesh

Bhim Prasad Gupta v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Prasad Gupta v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanuja Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivraj Singh Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lala Dewangan Vs Vijay Tiwari

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Buddhuram

Harihar Singh Vs Angad Kumar