Ashwani Kumar Sahu Vs Yogesh Kumar Sahu

¶1

Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-725-2022 & MAC-634-2022

¶2

2025:CGHC:61569

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Digitally SAIFAN signed KHAN by SAIFAN KHAN

¶6

MAC No. 725 of 2022

¶7

Ashwani Kumar Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 40 Years Caste- Teli R/o Village- Bodachhapar Post- Chest, Tahsil- Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Piluram Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village - Pachpedi, Post- Rampur, Tahsil- Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Tirath Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village- Joratarai Post- Silouti, Tahsil- Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Branch Manager Oriental India Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Center Makai Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. H. Patel, Advocate

¶16

WITH

¶17

MAC No. 634 of 2022

¶18

1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Chamruram Dhruv Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bodachhapar Post Chhati Tahsil Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - (Deleted) Chamruram Dhruv (Died) (Appellant No. 2 Will Be Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22.03.2025)

¶20

Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-725-2022 & MAC-634-2022

¶21

3 - Pushpa Dhruv D/o Chamruram Dhruv Aged About 19 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bodachhapar Post Chhati Tahsil Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

1 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Piluram Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Pachpedi Post Rampur, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶25

2 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Tirath Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Joratarai Post Silouti, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtrari Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶26

3 - Branch Manager Oriental India Insurance Company Limited M.B. Trade Center Makai Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶27

--- Respondents

¶28

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶29

For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶30

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board)

¶31

17.12.2025

¶32

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved and being arising out of a common accident, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶33

Both these appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) by the claimants calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned orders dated 19.04.2022, passed in Claim Case Nos. 85/2020 & 86/2020

¶34

Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-725-2022 & MAC-634-2022

¶35

respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim applications of the appellants/claimants on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been established.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimantAshwani Kumar Sahu, who is eye-witness in his case (i.e. Claim Case No.86/2020) as well as in Claim Case No.85/2020, has clearly witnessed the incident and proved the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question and, therefore, the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is duly established. As such, both the appeals deserves to be allowed and matter be remitted to the Claims Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation amount which is to be payable to the claimants.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of both the appeals by opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and by stating that the involvement of offending vehicle Bolero bearing No.CG-05-X-90004 is also found missing in merg intimation and FIR lodged in the accident in question.

¶38

5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶39

Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-725-2022 & MAC-634-2022

¶40

6 . A careful perusal of the record would show that claimantAshwani Kumar Sahu, who is eye-witness in his case (i.e. Claim Case No.86/2020) as well as in Claim Case No.85/2020 has clearly stated that while he alongwith Khileshwar Dhruv (deceased in Claim Case No.85/2020) were coming to Village Bodachhar from Borsi, on the way, near Mahanadi Dam Road, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing No.CG-05-X-90004, came from back side and dashed the motor-cycle in which he was sitting and, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and Khileshwar Dhruv died. Ashwani Kumar Sahu has been subjected to some length of cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted from him to hold that the said vehicle- Bolero bearing No.CG-05-X-90004 was not involved in the accident in question or the said vehicle has wrongly been implanted. Furthermore, the Claims tribunal erred in relying upon the FIR and merg intimation while rejecting the claim applications of the claimant for the reason that the authors of those documents were not examined.

¶41

7 . In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, passed in both the Claim Cases No.85/2020 & 86/2020 are hereby set aside and it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing No.CG-05-X-90004, namely, Yogesh Kumar Sahu (respondent herein) plied the same in rash and negligent manner and due to which the accident in question

¶42

Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-725-2022 & MAC-634-2022

¶43

occurred. Consequently, the matters are remitted to the Claims Tribunal concerned for passing appropriate award with regard to quantum of compensation which is to be payable to the claimants herein. It is made clear that said award shall be be passed within 01 month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the accident in question took place on 06.08.2020. No further notices are required to be served and the parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 08.01.2026 for the said purpose.

¶44

8 . With aforesaid observation and direction, both the appeals are allowed. No cost.

¶45

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶46

s@if

Ashwani Kumar Sahu v. Yogesh Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

Ashwani Kumar Sahu v. Yogesh Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sapna Mandal Vs Govind @ Govinda

Smt. Annapurna Goswami Vs Mukesh Kumar Yadu

Smt. Sukmat Bai Vs Bhagvendra Singh Kshatriya

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Maniram Netam

Uttam Prasad Sinha Vs Remeshwar Singh

Pawas Sahu @ Raja Vs Veduram Ratre