Ku. Shikha Meshram Vs Alok Kumar Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:25472

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 206 of 2019

¶6

1 - Ku. Shikha Meshram D/o Late Yuvraj Meshra Aged About 19 Years

¶7

2 - Yash Meshram S/o Late Yuvraj Meshram Aged About 15 Years, minor : through their Legal Guardian Appellant No. 3

¶8

3 - Smt. Leela Meshram W/o Shamrao Meshram Aged About 69 Years All are of R/o- House No. B/101, Road No. 13, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Alok Kumar Singh S/o Late T.K. Singh R/o- Pragati Nagar, Risali, Plot No. 09, Shantikunj, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Future General India Limited Through- Corporate/registered Office, 001 Delta Plaza, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Future Genrali India Insurance Company Limted, Through Claim Manager, Shop No. 3, Second Floor, Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol Pump, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

18/06/2025

¶18

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶19

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2018, passed in Claim Case No.1453/2012, whereby the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) has dismissed the claim application for grant of

¶20

2

¶21

compensation filed by the appellants/claimants as against the death of Yuvraj Meshram, who died in the road accident.

¶22

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Yuvraj Meshram, pleading therein that on 01.01.2012, Yuvraj Meshram along with his wife Kalpana Meshram and their children were returning from Bhilai in his Car bearing registration No.C.G.-07-MA-3416 from Jagdalpur when they reached near Khallari bridge Gunderdehi, due to failure of the steering of the car, they met with an accident. In the accident Kalpana Meshram died on the spot and Yuvraj Meshram suffered severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Sector-9 Hospital where during the course of treatment he died. It was pleaded that at the time of accident deceased Yuvraj Meshram was working as Superintending Engineer and getting annual salary of Rs.6,42,516/-.

¶23

The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, dismissed the claim of the claimants/appellants holding that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of the appellants/claimants and the witnesses that the car driven by the deceased Yuvraj Meshram met with an accident and turned turtuled due to mechanical

¶25

3

¶26

fault in its steering on extraneous consideration. It is contended that the claimants in the claim application has specifically pleaded that the car met with an accident due to its mechanical fault i.e. failure of steering. The offending vehicle was got examined by the mechanic on the direction of police and as per the vehicle examination report of the mechanic, he found failure of steering. The vehicle examination report is filed as Ex.P-10. The mechanic Jagdip Singh is examined as AW-2, who in his evidence clearly stated that upon examination of the vehicle he found the steering of the vehicle failed apart from other damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident. This witness was cross examined by the counsel for non-applicant therein and in the evidence of the Jagdip Singh (AW-2), nothing suggestive has come that the steering can even failed due to the nature of accident also.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available on record had recorded a finding that the accident is the result of self negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He also contended that the witness Jagdip Singh (AW-2) (Mechanic) in his evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal has not stated as to since when the steering of the offending vehicle failed and therefore, tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence of Jagdip Singh (AW-2).

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has framed the issue No.2 as to whether the accident was result of the self

¶30

4

¶31

negligence of the deceased Yuvraj Meshram and answered the issue No.2 in affirmative. The learned Claims Tribunal considered the pleadings in the reply of the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company that accident is the result of self negligence of the deceased/driver and have placed reliance upon the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police, who investigated the crime of accident and mentioned that vehicle met with an accident as it was driven in a high speed by the driver and further considered the evidence of Jagdip Singh (AW-2) (Mechanic) and mentioned that this witness shows his inability to state as to how many days prior to examination of the vehicle the steering got failed, further that steering of the car was power steering and it got locked from inside and further that this witness has not specifically stated that steering was locked prior to the accident or after the accident.

¶32

Perusal of the deposition of the Jagdip (AW-2) would show that this witness in his evidence has stated that on examination of the offending vehicle bearing No.C.G.-07-MA 3416 he found steering of the vehicle failed. No question has been put to this witness either by the Tribunal or by the counsel appearing for the non-applicant therein about the failure of the steering prior to accident or after accident. In absence of any such evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that from the evidence of the mechanic it is not clear that the accident occurred due to locking of the steering and has placed reliance upon the document of the criminal case to record a finding that the vehicle at the time of accident was running in a high speed.

¶33

5

¶34

In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer , reported in 2005 (1) WN 91 , the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that “In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”.

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 has observed that for deciding the claim case it is the pleading and the evidence of the claim proceedings are only to be considered and not to the documents of the criminal case. In the case at hand also, statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police has not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in relying upon the contents of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is part of the chargesheet in the criminal case.

¶36

Claimants in the claim application have pleaded that as to how the accident happened i.e. due to mechanical failure of the offending vehicle and further in support of that plea had also examined the mechanic, who earlier examined the vehicle on being asked by the police authorities and has also submitted the documents in evidence as Ex.P-10C before the learned Claims Tribunal mentioning that he

¶37

6

¶38

found the steering of the vehicle failed (locked) upon examining the vehicle.

¶39

In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record that there was mechanical failure of the steering of the vehicle, in the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the self negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, on the basis of document of criminal case, is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the said finding is set-aside and it is held that the accident of the offending vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure of the steering of the offending vehicle.

¶40

As the learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants, therefore, the case is remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal only to compute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants based on the documentary and oral evidence available on record.

¶41

For the forgoing discussions appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 4^th of August, 2025.

¶42

Registry is directed to send back the record of the claim case forthwith.

¶43

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

Balram

Ku. Shikha Meshram v. Alok Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Shikha Meshram v. Alok Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulawati Sahu Vs Sunil Dwivedi

Bhajan Singh Painkara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Sagir Vs Rinu Bibi

Rajkumar Kurre Vs Santosh Chandra

Smt. Vrinda Bai Vs Santosh Chandra