Smt. Girija Bai Rawate Vs Arvind Pandey

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.09 18:26:09 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:49896

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 532 of 2019

¶7

Smt. Girija Bai Rawate Wd/o Late Fatesh Kumar Rawate Aged About 23 Years R/o Camp-1, Jalebi Chowk, Tata Line, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Girish Kumar Rawate S/o Late Fatesh Kumar Rawate Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Girija Bai Rawate (Appl. No.1), R/o Camp-1, Jalebi Chowk, Tata Line, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Ku. Mitali Rawate D/o Late Fatesh Kumar Rawate Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Girija Bai Rawate (Appl. No.1), R/o Camp-1, Jalebi Chowk, Tata Line, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Radhe Lal Rawate S/o Late Patiram Rawate Aged About 55 Years R/o Camp-1, Jalebi Chowk, Tata Line, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Smt. Sukma Bai W/o Radhe Lal Rawate Aged About 52 Years R/o Camp-1, Jalebi Chowk, Tata Line, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

Arvind Pandey S/o Ramadhar Pandey R/o Badshahpur, Jounpur (U.P.) Through Shri Lalchand Kedonath Pandey S/o Shri Pandey, R/o Transport Wings Private Limited, Amrawati Road Wadi, Tahsil And District- Nagpur, Maharashtra.............(Driver Of Truck No. Mh-31, W-8532)., District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶15

Lalchand Kedonath Pandey S/o Shri Pandey R/o Transport Wings Private Limited, Amrawati Road Wadi, Tahsil And District- Nagpur, Maharastra...............(Owner Of Truck No. Mh-31, W-8532)., District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶16

United India Insurance Company Limited 19, Dharampeth Extension, Shankar Nagar Square, Nagpur- 440010 Maharashtra, Through United India Insurance Company Limited.............(Insurer Of Truck No. Mh-31, W- 8532)., District : Nagpur, Maharashtra

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant : Mr. Imam Siddiqui, Advocate holding the brief

¶19

2

¶20

For Respondent No. 3

¶21

of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶23

07.10.2025

¶24

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg in Claim Case No. 39/2014 dated 13.12.2018, whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of alleged offending vehicle.

¶25

The facts in brief are that on 17.01.2014, when deceased Fatesh Kumar was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 G 8115 along with his friend Balram Sen, near Khurshipar Tira signal, the driver of offending Truck bearing registration No. MH 31 W 8532 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, consequently, Fatesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment on 17.01.2014. Merg intimation was lodged by the employee of Government Hospital, Durg, wherein, it is stated that deceased Fatesh Kumar by driving motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 G 8115 rashly and negligently dashed a stationery Truck from backside, consequently, he sustained injuries. It is also stated that the Truck was waiting for green signal at a traffic signal. FIR was lodged by Balram Sen on 19.02.2014 against the driver of the motorcycle, namely, Fatesh Kumar. In FIR, Balram Sen stated that they were returning to their home on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 G 8115 and the said bike was being driven by deceased Fatesh Kumar. It is further stated that the Truck bearing registration No. MH 31 W 8532 was waiting for green signal at a traffic signal and Fatesh

¶26

3

¶27

Kumar by driving motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the said Truck from rear side, consequently, Fatesh Kumar as well as Balram Sen sustained grievous injuries. Copy of FIR has been annexed as Ex. P/2,

¶28

The claimants who are widow, two children and parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 25 years and he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. They claim compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- with interest.

¶29

The Insurance company filed reply and denied averments made in claim application. It was specifically pleaded that the motorcycle was being driven by driver/deceased rashly and negligently and he dashed the stationery Truck, and thus, there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and the learned Tribunal passed an award.

¶30

Mr. Imam Siddiqui, Advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that AW/2 Koteshwar Rao, who is an eye witness deposed that the offending Truck was being reversed by its driver and it dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, Fatesh Kumar and Balram Sen sustained injuries. He further deposed that on 17.01.2014 at around 08.30 pm, he was present in his shop. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has discarded the evidence of this witness. He would also submit that the signatures of Balram Sen were taken by the police on blank papers and FIR was lodged. He would contend that when two vehicles are involved in the accident, the matter should be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He would further contend that the holistic view of the

¶31

4

¶32

evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. It is argued that the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander versus Mohammed Shafi and Anr . reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality while dismissing the claim petition. He would pray to allow this appeal.

¶33

On the other hand, Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Insurance company would oppose. She would further submit that FIR Ex. P/2 was lodged by Balram Sen and in FIR Balram Sen has categorically stated that there was negligence on the part of deceased Fatesh Kumar, who was driving motorcycle rashly and negligently and he dashed his bike against stationery Truck, which was waiting for green signal at a traffic signal. She would contend that Koteshwar Rao AW/2 appeared in the witness box on 03.07.2018, but he never appeared before the police officials to reveal the fact that there was negligence on the part of the offending Truck. She would also contend that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition.

¶34

I have learned learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

Admittedly on the date of accident i.e. 17.01.2014, deceased Fatesh Kumar and Balram Sen were returning to Bhilai – 3 on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 G 8115. They met with an accident with a Truck bearing registration No. MH 31 W 8532. According to averments made in the claim application, the said Truck was being reversed by its driver

¶36

5

¶37

contrary to traffic rules in rash and negligent manner and it dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, they sustained injuries. An FIR was lodged by Balram Sen against the driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased Fatesh Kumar on 19.02.2014, wherein Balram Sen specifically stated that Late Fatesh Kumar was driving motorcycle rashly and negligently and he dashed the stationary Truck from back side. In the FIR it is nowhere stated that the offending Truck was being reversed by its driver.

¶38

Police conducted an enquiry and report was submitted with the Office of Police Superintendent, District Durg. In report, it is stated that deceased Fatesh Kumar while driving motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the Truck standing at a traffic signal, and resultantly, the driver of motorcycle and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries.

¶39

10. Claim application was filed on 09.10.2014, and first time, this plea was taken that the driver of the offending Truck while reversing vehicle dashed the motorcycle. In this regard an eye-witness AW/2 Koteshwar Rao has been examined who has stated that the Truck was being reversed by its driver contrary to traffic rules and it dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, consequently, they sustained injuries. This witness further stated that at the time of accident, he was present in his shop.

¶40

11. Inquest was conducted on 18.01.2014 wherein it is mentioned that Late Fatesh Kumar by driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the stationery Truck. Final report was submitted by the Police after investigation where again same story was depicted. These facts including the documents placed on record Ex. P/2 to P/7 were within the knowledge of the claimants, but they never made any complaint before the superior Police authorities.

¶41

12. The learned Tribunal framed specific issues, considered documentary and

¶42

6

¶43

oral evidence and concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the alleged offending Truck.

¶44

13. In the matter of Mathew Alexander (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a holi stic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. It is further held that the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident, para 9 is reproduced herein-below :-

¶45

“9. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the Appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly.

¶46

In this context, we could refer to judgments of this Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354, wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-A of IPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in (2009) 13 SCC 530, in the case of Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (“Bimla Devi”), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be

¶47

7

¶48

granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi.

¶49

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 has held that the claimants has to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death. It was a case where the father of the deceased was seeking compensation for death of his son in accident which occurred on account of negligence on the part of driver of the tanker lorry. Para 10 is reproduced herein-below :-

¶50

“10. In that view of the matter, it is for the Appellant herein to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the aforesaid reasons. This is because the Appellant herein is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. It is further observed that in the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law.”

¶51

15. Admittedly, the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of

¶52

preponderance of probabilities, but at the same time, they are under obligation to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and in absence of such piece of evidence, it cannot be concluded

¶53

8

¶54

that there was negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. In the present case, FIR was lodged by pillion rider of the motorcycle, who categorically stated that there was negligence on the part of Late Fatesh Kumar as he was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed against stationary Truck, which was waiting for green signal at a traffic signal, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly recorded findings with regard to negligence.

¶55

16. The learned Tribunal after considering the pros and cons of the matter dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶56

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶57

$iddhant

Smt. Girija Bai Rawate v. Arvind Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Girija Bai Rawate v. Arvind Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devichandra Pardhi Vs Sunil Kumar Dewangan

Smt. Neera Singh Vs Aman Kumar

Gagra Ram Kashyap Vs Naindhar Patel

Hemkishan Sahu Vs Smt. Krishna Bai

Smt. Jethi Bai Jain Vs Bhanwarlal Rathi

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Khorbahra Dhruv