Sunil Kumar Sahu Vs Abdul Rahim Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Sunil Kumar Sahu Vs Abdul Rahim Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether liability to satisfy the compensation amount ought to have been fastened upon the registered owner alone and not upon the appellant, who possessed and commanded the offending vehicle but was not its recorded/registered owner. +1 more

Court's answer

While it is true that the registered owner is liable to pay compensation, the appellant himself, examined as NAW-01 before the Claims Tribunal, admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and that the driver is engaged by him; hence there is no error in the Tribunal's direction that the compensation be satisfied jointly and severally by the driver, the physical owner and the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

Ratio / Principle

There is no error in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of non-applicant no. 1, driver of the offending vehicle; the said finding calls for no interference and the appellant's submission that the deceased also contributed to the accident is unsustainable and is repelled.

Key takeaways

Non-applicant nos. 1 to 3 took the plea that the accident was the result of negligence on part of the deceased, yet examined neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle; the driver, who could have been the best person to prove the manner of the accident and the deceased's negligence, did not enter the witness box.ratio¶9
Though Puranlal Sahu claimed to be an eye-witness, he gave no information to police during investigation and is not a witness in the criminal case per charge-sheet Ex. P-01; absent documentary evidence establishing him as eye-witness, his oral statement could not be accepted as admissible evidence, and the Claims Tribunal was justified in disbelieving NAW-02.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, MAC No. 296 of 2020 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu), decided 05.08.2025 (NAFR; 2025:CGHC:38797) — Appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the physical owner of truck C.G.-07-A.T.-2764 against the award dated 20.12.2019 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (Claim Case No. 151/2018) arising from the death of Shahnawaz Khan @ Sunny in the collision of 24.06.2018. Held: (i) the plea that the deceased was contributory negligent fails — non-applicants 1–3, who pleaded the deceased's negligence, examined neither the driver nor the owner, and the driver (the best witness to the manner of accident) never entered the witness box; the alleged eye-witness NAW-02/Puranlal Sahu gave no information to police, does not appear in the charge-sheet Ex. P-01, and his unsupported oral testimony was rightly disbelieved; the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred from the negligence of the offending truck's driver (non-applicant no. 1) is confirmed; (ii) although the registered owner is liable to pay compensation, the appellant admitted as NAW-01 that he owns the offending vehicle and engages the driver, so there is no error in the Tribunal directing the driver, the physical owner and the registered owner to satisfy the award jointly and severally; the appellant's request for a 50% reduction on grounds of contributory negligence is repelled. Appeal dismissed. Compensation figures as stated in the judgment: award of Rs. 7,10,400/- (para 1), alternatively computed as Rs. 8,76,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. (para 6), against a claim of Rs. 24,80,000/- premised on the deceased's stated income of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

1

ALFIZA BAIG

Digitally signedby ALFIZABAIG Date:2025.08.2912:20:41 +0530

2025:CGHC:38797

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 296 of 2020

1- Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o. Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village- Kochera, Thana- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-A.T.-2764), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant/Applicant

versus

1 - Abdul Rahim Khan S/o. Late Shri Enayat Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village- Salhebar Para Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Raziya Begum W/o. Shri Abdul Rahim Khan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Salhebar Para Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Virendra Kumar S/o. Shri Dhansay Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village- Jawartala, Thana- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-A.T.-2764)

4 - Dayaram Sonwani S/o. Shri Teekaram Sonwani Aged About 54 Years R/o. Village- Selud, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Mohd. Anis S/o. Shri Ali Ibrahim R/o. Makeshwar Ward Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents/Non-applicants

: For Appellant Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

2

For Respondent(s)^: None, though served

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Judgment On Board

05.08.2025

Appellant-owner has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 20.12.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 151/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 by claimants seeking compensation, in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.06.2018 at about 1:45 pm when Shahnawaz Khan @ Sunny was riding his vehicle Activa bearing registration no. CG 05 V 7408, one truck bearing registration no. CG 07 AT 2764 dashed the vehicle Activa, which was being driven by Shahnawaz Khan and caused accident. In the said accident, Shahnawaz Khan suffered grievous injuries and was taken to hospital for treatment, after he died during the course of treatment.

Claimants, parents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 24,80,000/against, death of their son on different heads and further pleaded therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 21 years. He was in private job and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

3

Non-applicants No. 1,2 & 3 filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the deceased met with an accident due to his own rash and negligent driving and thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim application filed against them.

Non-applicant No. 4 also filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that he had sold the two wheeler to claimant no. 1 father of the deceased and has handed over all the relevant documents to him, however, even after giving assurance, claimant no. 1/father of the deceased did not transfer his name in the records of the transport department and was merely using the vehicle, thus, he is not liable to pay compensation, if any.

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased - Shahnawaz Khan died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 8,76,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon nonapplicant no. 1, non-applicant no.2(physical owner) and non-applicant no. 3(registered owner) of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.

Learned counsel for appellant-physical owner of the offending vehicle would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon appellant who is not recorded or registered owner of the offending vehicle, according to the facts of case, liability ought to have been

4

fastened upon registered owner only and not against the person who is in possession and command of the vehicle. He next contended that as there was collision between 02 vehicles, deceased also contributed to the accident which is also proved by evidence of NAW-02/Puranlal Sahu and, therefore, if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that appellant is also liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally with other two, the compensation be reduced to the extent of 50%.

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

So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the accident is concerned, perusal of reply filed on behalf of non-applicant no. 1,2 and 3 would show that they have taken a plea that the accident was result of negligence on part of the deceased also. To prove pleadings made in the claim application they have not examined either the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle. Driver could be the best person who could have proved the manner in which accident occurred and as to how the deceased was negligent in accident. However, for the reasons best known to Non- applicant no. 1 to 3 the driver of offending vehicle non-applicant no. 1 did not enter into the witness box.

So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant which is based on the evidence of Puranlal Sahu is concerned, though he claimed himself to be eye-witness of the accident, however, he has not given any information to Police during course of investigation. He is not a witness in criminal case as per charge-sheet filed by the Police Ex. P-01. In absence of the documentary evidence on record wherein Puranlal Sahu is shown to be an eye-witness to the accident, merely his oral

5

statement on behalf of any person could not be accepted as admissible evidence in the facts of the case and, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the evidence of NAW-02 in this regard.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that, accident occurred due to negligence on the part of non-applicant no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle and the said finding does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for appellant that, the deceased also contributed in said accident is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled.

So far as submission of counsel for appellant that liability to satisfy amount of compensation could only be against registered owner is concerned, true it is that registered owner is liable to pay amount of compensation, however, in view of evidence of appellant, who was examined as NAW-01 before the learned Claims Tribunal, wherein he admitted that he is owner of the offending vehicle and the driver is engaged by him, Claims Tribunal has fastened liability jointly and severally upon non-applicant no. 1 to 3. In the above facts of the case, I do not find any error in direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally upon driver, physical owner and registered owner of the offending vehicle.

For the forgoing discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules. sd/-

Alfiza

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge