Ram Ratan Banjare Vs Jainuram Sori

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:31763

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 644 of 2018

¶7

1 - Ram Ratan Banjare S/o Late Sadhelal Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o M.I.G. 23/18, Jawahar Nagar Ward-12, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Truck C.G.07, C 7851), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Jainuram Sori S/o Late Mitturam Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Siganpur (Kumharpara), Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Kumari Holika Sori D/o Jainuram Sori Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Siganpur (Kumharpara), Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Tara Complex, G.E.Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg,

¶13

2

¶14

Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck C.G.07 C 7851), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Surendra Yadav S/o Late Tuloram Aged About 28 Years R/o A.C.C. Jamul (Near Gangaram Shop) Police Station Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck C.G.07 C 7851), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2	: None.
For Respondent(s)No. 3	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu,
	Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

09/07/2025

¶21

This is an owner’s appeal against the award dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2016.

¶22

Brief facts of the case, is that, the deceased was working as a labourer in the F.C.I. store and on 27/02/2016 at about 4:30 PM, while returning on his bicycle near the shop of Cheduram Mandai at Gulabapara on the National Highway, he was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration No. CG-07-C-7851, driven rashly

¶23

3

¶24

and negligently by respondent No. 1. As a result, the deceased fell and came under the truck's wheels, sustaining fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellant has filed a claim under Sections 166(1) and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 28/03/2016 claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,76,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, after examining witnesses, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,09,000/- as compensation. While respondent No. 1 remained unrepresented, respondent No. 2 admitted ownership of the vehicle and respondent No. 1’s status as driver, respondent No. 3 filed a reply denying liability. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has filed MAC No. 1355/2017 and sought exemption from depositing the statutory amount under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, vide its order dated 11/10/2017, the Court granted three weeks to deposit the required amount, failing which the appeal stood dismissed. Subsequently, by peremptory order dated 24/11/2017, MAC No. 1355/2017 was dismissed. The appellant then filed MCC No. 170/2018 for restoration, which was rejected on 16/03/2018 on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 173. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal was not on merits and did not preclude the filing of a fresh appeal upon compliance. The appellant deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 27/02/2018 in compliance

¶25

4

¶26

with Section 173.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driving license was not verified from the District- Motihari from where the subsequent driving license has been issued after renewal of the said. He further submits that the primary driving license has been issued from RTO, Munger. He further submits that the Court has appointed a Commissioner to verify the driving license of the driver and upon verification the Court Commissioner has given a report vide Exs. D/4 and D/5 according to which the driving license was found to be fake.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the Insurance Company has also verified the driving license through investigator upon which a report has been submitted by the investigator as D/3 in both the places Munger and Motihari, the license was verified and it was found to be fake one.

¶29

None for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 opposes the same.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the driving license of the driver was thoroughly verified both by the Court

¶33

5

¶34

Commissioner (vide Exs. D/4 and D/5) and independently by the Insurance Company through its investigator (Ex. D/3). The findings from both the RTOs i.e. Munger and Motihari confirmed that the driving license in question was fake. In light of these concurrent findings and absence of any credible rebuttal from the appellant, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal.

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and according it is dismissed . No interference is warranted.

¶36

Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶39

Raghu Jat

Ram Ratan Banjare v. Jainuram Sori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ratan Banjare v. Jainuram Sori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarita Panigrahi Vs Smt. Rukani

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gujeshwari

Minor Barun Nayak Vs Manoranjan Pradhan

Smt. Nootan Chouhan Vs Arshad Ali Khan

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish @ Bhurva

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihari Soni