Dismissed¶34

Dhanmet v. Atwari

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL – Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025MAC/212/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; 2025:CGHC:30997; MAC No. 212 of 2018; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; decision 07/07/2025; appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against award dated 14.09.2017 of 2nd Additional MACT Surajpur in Claim Case No.139/16; fatal motorcycle accident 21.04.2015, victim Anup Singh, motorcycle CG 15 CA 1063; ex-parte proceedings against owner-appellant after due notice; liability on owner of uninsured vehicle; multiplier and quantum of Rs. 4,54,000/- upheld as fair; condonation of 30 days' delay; appeal dismissed, no costs; counsel C. J. K. Rao for appellant, Ayush Lall / Surfaraj Khan for respondents.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's award dated 14.09.2017 stands upheld and no order as to costs was made. ¶34

Dhanmet Vs Atwari — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's award dated 14.09.2017 stands upheld and no order as to costs was made.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in law and denied the appellant an opportunity of hearing in fastening liability of Rs. 4,54,000/- upon her while she remained ex-parte without filing a written reply. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The appellant, despite due notice, failed to appear before the Claims Tribunal, remained ex-parte and did not file a written reply; the Tribunal was therefore justified in proceeding with the matter and deciding it on the basis of available evidence, and the plea of denial of hearing fails.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The offending vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident - a fact the appellant did not dispute - and in the absence of a valid insurance policy the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability upon the owner/appellant.

¶33

Key takeaways

The multiplier has been correctly applied and the compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- awarded is fair, just and not excessive.ratio¶33
No ground warranting interference with the findings of the Tribunal having been made out, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL - Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - appeal by the vehicle owner (who had remained ex-parte before the Tribunal) against award dated 14.09.2017 of the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, in Claim Case No.139/16, fastening liability of Rs. 4,54,000/- on her for the death of pedestrian Anup Singh, hit from behind by motorcycle CG 15 CA 1063 driven by respondent Anand Ram Bargah on 21.04.2015 - delay of 30 days in filing condoned - Held: (i) the appellant was duly served yet chose to remain ex-parte and filed no written reply, so the Tribunal was justified in proceeding and deciding on the available evidence, and the plea of denial of hearing fails; (ii) the offending vehicle was uninsured on the date of the accident, a fact the appellant did not dispute, hence liability was rightly fastened on the owner; (iii) the multiplier was correctly applied and the compensation of Rs. 4,54,000/- is fair, just and not excessive; no ground for interference - appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

2025:CGHC:30997

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 212 of 2018

¶6

1 - Dhanmet W/o W/o Jagat Ram Aged About 64 Years Caste Bargah, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Parsapara, P. S. Jainagar, DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh. .................(Non- Applicant No. 2)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Atwari W/o W/o Anup Singh, Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Podipa, Post Kalyanpur, P. S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ......................(Applicants)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Mahendra S/o S/o Late Anup Singh Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o Podipa, Post Kalayanpur, P. S. Jainagar, Tahsil And DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...................(Applicants)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Anand Ram Bargarh, S/o S/o Late Jagatram Bargah, Aged About 42 Years Caste Bargah, Occupation Service (S.E.C.L). R/o Village Parsapara (Amapara), P. S. Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .......................(Non- Applicant No. 1)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate

¶14

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶16

Order Sheet

¶17

07/07/2025

¶18

Heard on I.A. No.01 – an application for condonation of delay.

¶19

Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

Heard on admission.

¶21

Admit.

¶22

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant against the award dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.139/16, whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the amount of award to the respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.4,54,000/-.

¶23

Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that on the date of the incident, 21.04.2015, at around 8:00 PM in the night, the deceased Anup Singh was standing and talking near the house of Nanka Gond in village Podipa, when Respondent No.3 Anand Ram Bargah, driving motorcycle number CG 15 CA 1063 (CD

¶24

¶25

Dawn) at a very high speed and in a negligent manner from the direction of Kalyanpur, hit Anup Singh from behind his back with great force. As a result, Anup Singh was thrown off and sustained serious injuries. He was taken for treatment to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, where he died during treatment on 22.04.2015. Due to the loss and damage caused by the said accident, the applicants have filed a claim for compensation before the Tribunal amounting to 26,54,600/- (Rupees Twenty-₹ Six Lakhs Fifty-Four Thousand Six Hundred only) from the respondents. Hence this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal did not afford the appellant any opportunity of hearing and wrongly fastened liability of Rs. 4,54,000/- upon the present appellant. It is also submitted that the award was passed while the appellant remained ex-parte and no written reply was filed on his behalf. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal awarded compensation on the higher side and incorrectly applied the multiplier. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award (Annexure A/1) may be set aside and the appellant may be exonerated.

¶27

It is submitted by the respondents that the Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the award

¶28

¶29

strictly in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has meticulously considered the documentary and oral evidence, including medical bills, wage loss certificates, and other relevant material, before arriving at the quantum of compensation. The contention that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant is incorrect and misleading. The appellant was duly served with notices and summons, but she chose to remain exparte by not appearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot be blamed for passing the award in the absence of the appellant’s presence or any written reply. Since the appellant failed to contest the claim despite proper service of notice, the Tribunal rightly proceeded ex-parte. This is in accordance with settled principles of law, wherein the claimant’s right to receive compensation cannot be stalled indefinitely due to the appellant’s noncooperation. The multiplier and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal have been correctly applied and are neither excessive nor arbitrary. The liability has been rightly fastened upon the appellant as the vehicle was not insured. He goes on to submit that the vehicle was not insured as such the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the owner of the vehicle/present appellant. In view of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal be upheld in the interest of justice.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the

¶31

¶32

documents available on record. Particularly the order impugned herein.

¶33

It is evident that the present appellant, despite due notice, failed to appear before the Claims Tribunal, remained ex-parte and not even submitted his written reply. The Tribunal was therefore justified in proceeding with the matter and deciding it on the basis of available evidence. The Tribunal has thoroughly appreciated the material on record and passed a reasoned award. The multiplier has been correctly applied and the compensation amount of Rs. 4,54,000/- awarded is fair, just, and not excessive. Importantly, the appellant has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. In the absence of a valid insurance policy, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the owner/appellant. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the findings of the Tribunal.

¶34

The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

ABHIGYASAXENA Digitallysigned byABHIGYASAXENA Saxena

Dhanmet v. Atwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanmet v. Atwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust Vs Atul Bajaj

Shri Sourabh Sonchhatra Vs Atul Bajaj

Smt. Gulabi Baug Vs Ravi Thomas

Jubeda Begam Vs Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Nasir Khan