Smt. Nileshwari Verma Vs Dushyant Sahu — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Smt. Nileshwari Verma Vs Dushyant Sahu — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award rejecting the claim was left undisturbed — no compensation awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the fatal accident of 08.10.2020 was caused by failure of brakes while the deceased swerved to save a cow that came on the road, or by the deceased's own rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. +1 more

Court's answer

The claimants' witnesses were not eyewitnesses; the brake-failure/avoid-cow version was not accepted as reliable, and the claimants' own record established that the deceased was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the truck going out of control and colliding with a Saja tree at a turn, causing his death.

Ratio / Principle

The deceased alone was responsible for causing the accident and no other vehicle was involved; being the driver of the offending vehicle, he cannot be considered a 'third party' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — he was the victim of his own wrongful act.

Key takeaways

A claim under S.166 of the Act, which is based on fault liability, cannot be maintained where the claimant or the deceased was solely at fault; compensation cannot be sought from the insurer for an accident caused by the deceased's own negligence.ratio¶¶37
The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim was arrived at after proper appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record and does not call for any interference.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims appeal (S.173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) against dismissal of a S.166 death claim: the deceased was himself the driver of the offending truck and the sole cause of the accident — no other vehicle was involved. The claimants' witnesses were not eyewitnesses, and their plea of brake failure while avoiding a cow was rejected as unreliable; the claimants' own criminal-case record showed the deceased was driving in a rash and negligent manner, the truck colliding with a Saja tree at a turn. The driver of the offending vehicle is not a 'third party' under the Act; being based on fault liability, a S.166 claim cannot be maintained where the deceased was solely at fault, and liability cannot be attributed to the insurer for the deceased's own negligence. The Tribunal's dismissal was held to suffer from no infirmity; appeal dismissed, no compensation.

1

2025:CGHC:40868

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 654 of 2024

1 - Smt. Nileshwari Verma W/o Late Kaushal Prasad Verma Aged About 27 Years

2 - Jitendra Verma S/o Late Kaushal Prasad Verma Aged About 11 Years

3 - Ku. Kumkum Verma D/o Late Kaushal Prasad Verma Aged About 7 Years

4 - Lakheshwar Verma S/o Late Sadaram Aged About 58 Years

5 - Smt. Rohini Bai Verma W/o Lakheshwar Verma Aged About 54 Years No.2 and 3 are minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Nileshwari Verma, aged about 27 years.

All are R/o Village And Post- Odan, P.S. - Palari, District - Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh , At Present R/o Near Ganesh Mandir, P.S. D D Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellants

versus

1 - Dushyant Sahu S/o Dwarka Sahu R/o Aanganbadi No. 1, Near H P Gas Godown, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck Bearing No. C G - 04- Lr- 9907)

2 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Krishna Complex, Kachaharee Chowk, BALRAM PRASAD Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. C G - 04DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASADDEWANGAN Lr- 9907) Date: 2025.09.09 11:09:06 +0530

--- Respondents

2

--- Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

13/08/2025

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the impugned award dated 31.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No. 102 of 2021, whereby the learned 14^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 to be not maintainable.

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that an application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.29,70,000/- on account of death of Kaushal Prasad Verma who died in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 08.10.2020, at about 11:00 a.m., near Raj Dera Reservoir, Village Madeli, under jurisdiction of Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.), while deceased was driving Truck No. CG-04-LR-9907 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’), owned by NonApplicant No. 1, at a normal speed suddenly, a cow came on the roady and in order to save the cow, Kaushal Prasad Verma immediately applied brakes, however, due to failure of brake, the offending vehicle collided against a Saja tree. As a result of the collision, Kaushal Prasad Verma suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Accident

3

was reported at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.), where Crime No. 184/2020 was registered under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident deceased was aged about 39 years able bodied person, he was working as a driver and was earning ₹15,000/- per month.

Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application denying the averments made therein. It was specifically pleaded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by deceased himself. It was pleaded that a criminal case was registered against deceased under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. There are contradictions between the statements recorded in the criminal case submitted by claimants and the averments made in the claim application, indicating that claimants have filed a false claim. It was also pleaded that, on the date of accident, deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to operate offending vehicle. Moreover, offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of the insurance policy, without a valid permit and fitness certificate. Accordingly, it was prayed that claim application filed by the claimants be rejected.

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, rejected the claim on the ground that claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was not maintainable, as there was no involvement of any other vehicle, and the deceased, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by his own rash and negligent driving.

4

Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim application filed by claimants, having failed to properly appreciate both documentary and oral evidence brought on record. It is further contended that Claims Tribunal erred in arriving at a finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself. It is contended that accident was, in fact, caused due to failure of brake, which occurred while deceased was attempting to save the cow that had suddenly come on the road. Although learned Tribunal recorded a finding that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not being plied in breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, however, failed to award any compensation to the claimants.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and supports the impugned award. It is contended that deceased himself was driving offending vehicle at the time of the accident and was solely responsible for causing accident. It is further contended that no other vehicle was involved in accident, and as such, deceased cannot be treated as a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the claimants are not liable to get compensation on account of death of deceased, who died due to his own rash and negligent act. It is contended that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is upon appreciation of the entire documentary and oral evidence on record, which does not call for any interference.

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

5

In order to prove their case, claimants have examined Nileshwari Verma as (AW-1) and Dushyant Sahu as (AW-2), who in their evidence have stated as per the pleadings made in the claim application that on the date of accident deceased Kaushal Prasad Verma was driving Truck No. CG-04-LR-9907 at a normal speed, a cow suddenly came on the road and in an attempt to save the cow, he applied brakes, but due to failure of brake, truck collided against tree. As a result, Kaushal Prasad Verma sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Claimants have also placed on record and exhibited the documents of criminal case like FIR (Ex. P-1), Dehati Nalish (Ex..P-2), Information of untimely and accidental death as (Ex.P-3), Mourgue Intimation (Ex.P-4), Naksha Map Panchayatnama (Ex.P- 5), application for postmortem and postmortem report (Ex.P.-6 and 7), driving licence (Ex.P.11). In cross-examination Nileshwari Verma (A.W.-1) admitted that none of the documents marked and exhibited as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 mention brake failure as cause of accident. She further admitted that documents of criminal case mentions that deceased was driving the truck at a high speed and negligently, resulting in a collision with a tree at a turn. She also admitted that no complaint was ever filed by her disputing these findings or alleging that the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were false or fabricated. Dushyant Sahu (AW-2) stated in his examination-in-chief that deceased, Kaushal, used to drive the offending vehicle. However, in his crossexamination, he admitted that there was no mechanical defect in the said truck, and the driver had never informed him of any such fault in the vehicle.

6

The witnesses examined on behalf of claimants are not eyewitnesses to the accident. Therefore, statement of Nileshwari Verma (A.W.-1), claiming that accident occurred due to brake failure while deceased was attempting to save cow that had suddenly came on the road, cannot be accepted as reliable evidence. Furthermore, no other witness was produced by the claimants to substantiate the manner in which accident took place. On the contrary, the documents placed on record by the claimants themselves establishes that on the date of accident, deceased was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the truck went out of control and collided with a Saja tree at a turn, leading to the deceased sustaining fatal injuries and subsequently died.

For the foregoing discussion, it is clear that deceased alone was responsible for causing the accident, who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the deceased, being the driver of the offending vehicle, cannot be considered as a 'third party.' He was, in fact, the victim of his own wrongful act. A claim under Section 166 of the Act, which is based on fault liability, cannot be maintained where the claimant or the deceased was solely at fault. Claimant cannot seek compensation by attributing liability to the insurer when the accident was caused by deceased's own negligence. Accordingly, finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim on the ground that the deceased himself was responsible for accident and that claim application under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable has been arrived at after proper

7

appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record, which does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Balram