Smt. Mina Devi Vs Pravin Bairagi

¶1

Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-766-2023

¶2

2025:CGHC:33362

¶3

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

MAC No. 766 of 2023

¶7

[Arising out of order dated 26.04.2023, passed in MACT No.122 of 2018 (Smt. Meena Devi & others v. Pravin Bairagi & others) by the 1^st Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG)]

¶8

1 - Smt. Mina Devi Wd/o Late Anil Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o 429, 15 Block, Ward No. 09, Korba, Tah. And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Deepak Singh S/o Late Anil Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o 429, 15 Block, Ward No. 09, Korba, Tah. And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Diwakar Singh S/o Late Anil Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o 429, 15 Block, Ward No. 09, Korba, Tah. And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 - Pravin Bairagi S/o Shri Nahar Raj Bairagi R/o Village- Payali, P.S. Mehadvani, District- Dindauri, Madhya Pradesh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registration No. M.P.-28-P-0160)

¶14

2 - Shafik Akhtar S/o Sheikh Rafik Qureshi R/o Ward No. 16, Old Parasiya Naka, Chindwada, Post And District- Chindwada, Madhya Pradesh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registration No. M.P.-28-P-0160)

¶15

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Registered Office/branch Chindwada, First Floor, Marawi Complex, Satkar Tiraha, Village- Bada, Sanchar Colony, Chindwada, Post And District- Chindwada, Madhya Pradesh (Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle Mini Bus Bearing Registration No. M.P.-28-P-0160)

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

[Cause-title tak	en from C	ase Information System (CIS)]
-------------------------------	------------	-----------------------------------------------------
For Appellants	:	Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶18

Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-766-2023

¶19

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶20

(Order on Board)

¶21

16.07.2025

¶22

1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellants/claimants are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 26.04.2023, passed in MACT No.122 of 2018 (Smt. Meena Devi & others v. Pravin Bairagi & others) by the 1^st Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG) (for short the “AMACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed.

¶23

2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that on the date of occurrence while deceased- Anil Singh alongwith others were going from Mohgaon to Tabalpani in a vehicle (Bolero Car), on the way, the respondent No.1 herein, who was driving a Mini Bus bearing No. MP28-P-0160 dashed the vehicle, in which, the deceased was traveling, due to which, deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Consequently, the appellants being LRs of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act, which the learned AMACT proceeded to dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.04.2023 on the ground that the appellants/claimants failed to prove that they are resident of Korba (CG). Against which, this appeal has been preferred.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the claim application of

¶25

Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-766-2023

¶26

the appellants/claimants for the reason that though the incident in question occurred within the vicinity of District Mandla (MP), but the appellants/claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased, are resident of District Korba (CG) and, therefore, for virtue of subsection (2) of Section 166 of the MV Act, the appellants are entitled for compensation, which the learned AMACT has wrongly turned down by holding that the appellants failed to prove that they are resident of Korba. He also submits that the documents (Ex.P/6C & P/7C) has also been filed to establish that deceased- Anil Singh was resident of District Korba (CG). Hence the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 is liable to be set aside.

¶27

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the learned AMACT has rightly held that the appellants/claimants have failed to established that they are resident of District Korba (CG) and, as such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

6. In the instant case, though the accident is said to have taken place within the vicinity of District Mandla (MP), but the documents (Ex.P/6C & P/7C) would show that deceased- Anil Singh was resident of Ward No.09, Korba, District Korba (CG) and the appellants herein were also residing therein after the death of deceased- Anil Singh and

¶30

Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-766-2023

¶31

sub-Section (2) of Section 166 of the MV Act clearly states that “every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides”. As such, since deceased- Anil Singh was residing in District Korba (CG) and, as per the claim of the appellants/claimants, they were also residing at Korba after the death of the deceased, which fact is duly supported by affidavit filed by the appellants/claimants in support of their claim application before the learned AMACT and there is no counter affidavit against the same, therefore, appellants/claimants claim application could not have been rejected by the learned AMACT on that ground that they have failed to establish that they are resident of Korba (CG). As such, the impugned order dated 26.04.2023, passed by the learned AMACT, is liable to be set aside.

¶32

7. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned AMACT, Korba on 26.04.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the AMACT, Korba for deciding the appellants’ claim application afresh on merits without being prejudice by the impugned order dated 26.04.2023. The parties are also directed to appear before the learned AMACT, Korba on 28.07.2025. Needless to mention that no fresh notices were required to be issued/served. The learned AMACT, Korba shall pass final order on or before 30.11.2025.

¶33

Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-766-2023

¶34

8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶35

9. A copy of this order alongwith the original record of the case be transmitted to the learned AMACT, Korba for information and necessary action.

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶37

s@if

Smt. Mina Devi v. Pravin Bairagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mina Devi v. Pravin Bairagi

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

Photo Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Moti Bai Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited

Divisional Manager Vs Shyamlal Netam

Pitambar @ Poshan Nishad Vs Shivprasad Singh

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Vs Smt. Swarnmala Sahu

Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh