Salik Verma Vs Shashikant Chaturvedi

Sameer Verma S/o Late Mahesh Verma Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Represented Through Mother Bhuneshwari Verma. R/o Village- Jiya, Tahsil & District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Sumit Verma S/o Late Mahesh Verma Aged About 9 Years (Minor) Represented Through Mother Bhuneshwari Verma. R/o Village- Jiya, Tahsil & District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Appellants-claiamnts

¶13

versus

¶14

Shashikant Chaturvedi S/o Ramakant Chaturvedi Aged About 25 Years R/o J.P. Nagar, Navasta, Police StationNavasta, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh

¶15

Vimal Chandrakar S/o Late Faguwa Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Kanhera, Tahsil- Than Khamharia (Saja), District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

2

¶17

United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Address- Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil & District- Durg (CG). (Non-Applicants),

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

¶21

6/8/2025

¶22

Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 27.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.50/2019 by which learned Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Bemetara dismissed claim application on the ground that claimant failed to prove factum and manner of accident.

¶23

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that testimony of Shambhu Sahu (CW-2), an eyewitness of accident, clearly goes to show that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver (non-applicant No.1). A criminal case was also registered wherein non-applicant No.1 was charged for commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC. This fact also proves that non-applicant No.1 was negligent while driving the offending vehicle. However, the Claims Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly dismissed claim application only on the ground that appellants failed to prove that accident resulting into death of deceased was

¶24

3

¶25

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No.1.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has supported the impugned award.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record of claim case.

¶28

Claimants filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal pleading specifically that on 23.12.2018 deceased Mahesh Verma was going to his house situated in village Jiya on a motorcycle. At about 7:00 a.m. when they reached near Tiwari Dharamkanta located on Bemetara-Simga Road, one truck bearing registration No.CG25-D-5284, driven on wrong side in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed motorcycle of deceased as a result he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. Claimants have examined claimant no.1, who is father of deceased as AW1. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to accident. During crossexamination, he admitted that Shambhu Sahu informed him registration number of offending vehicle and also informed that he saw the accident. He also admitted that police registered FIR against unknown vehicle.

¶29

Shambhu Singh was examined as AW-2 and he deposed that on the fateful day, when he was passing from Tiwari

¶30

4

¶31

Dharamkanta on his bicycle, he saw that deceased was coming from Bemetara side on motorcycle and one truck coming from opposite direction dashed him. He admitted that he did not see registration number of truck. He also admitted that, on next day of accident, he met with family members of deceased and told them that accident was caused by vehicle coming from side of village Basni. After about 1½ months of accident, he saw that vehicle in village Basni at the place where bauxite is unloaded and there he saw number of vehicle. He had only seen last digits of registration and not full number. He further admitted that after causing accident, the truck did not stop for a moment on spot. He was at a distance of about 50-60 meter from the spot. He also admitted that it was winter season and there was no facility of light, on the spot.

¶32

Close scrutiny of statement of the witness (AW-2) reveals that after witnessing alleged accident, he neither accompanied the injured to the hospital nor has informed the police about the same. However, as a bolt from blue, after a gap of 1 ½ month of accident, he appeared as a eyewitness of accident. If Shambhu Sahu (AW-2) was an eye witness, he would have immediately informed the police and would have taken deceased to hospital, more particularly, when he was acquainted with deceased and his father. In the entire

¶33

5

¶34

statement, this witness has not offered any explanation as to why he remain silent for such a long period. Furthermore, in cross-examination he has admitted that accident occurred at 7:00 p.m., there was dark on spot and there was no facility of street light. This also casts doubt on claim of this witness regarding visual identification of colour of offending vehicle in darkness.

¶35

That apart, First Information Report of accident came to be registered on 1.1.2019 at 17:40 hrs (5:40 p.m.). The informant is none other than uncle of deceased and according to him, unknown vehicle had caused the accident in which deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. There is no mention in FIR that Shambhu Sahu (AW-2) is an eyewitness of accident, whereas, as per statement of Shambhu Sahu (AW-2), next date of accident he had informed family members of deceased that he had witnessed accident.

¶36

Because of aforementioned observations and reasons, presence of Shambhu Sahu (AW-2) thus on spot is highly doubtful and being so, his testimony does not inspire confidence of this Court that he had witnessed the accident.

¶37

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved evidence of Shambhu Sahu (AW-2) to the effect that it is offending vehicle that had caused accident in question leading to death of deceased

¶38

6

¶39

and as such, finding of the Claims Tribunal dismissing claim application of claimants-appellants does not require interference.

¶40