Dismissed¶35

Smt. Nandini Bharti v. Jagmohan Bharti

Chhattisgarh HC17 Feb 2026MAC/1283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 1283 of 2022; Chhattisgarh HC; S.166 MV Act claim; Hyva Truck CG-04 / LF-2704 turned turtle 30.05.2021; driver identity — deceased vs father Jagmohan; merg intimation Ex. P/4; F.I.R. Ex. P/2 Suraj Bharti; final report without witnesses; AW-1 Nandini Bharti at home; no valid driving licence; United India Insurance; Durg Tribunal dismissal upheld; appeal dismissed, no compensation.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, no good ground was made out to interfere with the judgment and award dated 31.10.2022; the appeal fails and is dismissed. ¶35

Smt. Nandini Bharti Vs Jagmohan Bharti — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.19 13:55:35 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:8695

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1283 of 2022

¶7

1 - Smt. Nandini Bharti W/o Jagmohan Bharti Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Taraleem, Post Lejwara, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶8

2 - Monika Bharti D/o Jagmohan Bharti Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Bharti W/o Jagmohan Bharti (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Taraleem, Post Lejwara, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶9

3 - Damini Bharti D/o Jagmohan Bharti Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Bharti W/o Jagmohan Bharti (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Taraleem, Post Lejwara, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶10

4 - Pushpanjali Bharti D/o Jagmohan Bharti Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Bharti W/o Jagmohan Bharti (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Taraleem, Post Lejwara, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 - Jagmohan Bharti S/o Vishwanath Bharti Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Taraleem, Post Lejwara, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle)

¶14

2 - Sumit Shukla S/o Ramakant Shukla R/o Lucky Makkad Hotel, Satkar Gali, Station Road, Raipur, Post/ Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle)

¶15

3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, R/o Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondents No. 3 /	: Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate with
Insurance Company	Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶20

18/02/2026

¶21

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal challenging the validity and propriety of the judgment and award passed by the learned VI^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 422/2021 dated 31.10.2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶22

The facts, in brief, are that on 30.05.2021 while deceased Dileshwar Bharti was going to Raipur from Khairagarh as helper of Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG-04 / LF-2704, said vehicle turned turtle, resultantly he sustained injuries and succumbed to death.

¶23

The claimants who are mother and 03 minor sisters of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 20 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶24

The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the deceased himself was driving the offending Hyva Truck which turned turtle and subsequently another driver i.e. father of the deceased was implanted.

¶25

The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter the judgment and award was passed.

¶26

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the police filed final report against the driver of the offending vehicle namely Jagmohan and said document has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. He would contend that the witnesses have categorically stated that the father of the deceased namely Jagmohan was driving the offending Hyva Truck which turned turtle and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal

¶27

¶28

committed error of law while holding that the deceased himself was driving vehicle which turned turtle and deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. He would submit that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal may be set aside.

¶29

On the other hand, Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would submit that in merg intimation vide Ex. P/4, it is specifically stated that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself and same fact is narrated in F.I.R. vide Ex. P/2. He would contend that without there being any foundation, the police filed charge sheet against Jagmohan. He would contend that the claimants made effort to establish the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by father of the deceased namely Jagmohan, but they utterly failed and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. He would further submit that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and it was another reason for dismissal of the claim petition. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶31

Merg intimation Ex. P/4 was registered on 30.05.2021, wherein it is stated that the deceased was driving offending Metador which turned turtle and in said accident, he lost his life. In F.I.R. Ex. P/2 which was registered on the instance of Suraj Bharti, it is stated that the offending Metador was being driven by deceased himself. After investigation, final report was filed by the police against Jagmohan, but its perusal would show that it is nowhere stated as to how the police came to

¶32

¶33

conclusion that the offending vehicle was being driven by Jagmohan, even name of witnesses are not mentioned in the entire final report. AW-1 Nandini Bharti admitted the fact that at the time of accident, she was at home.

¶34

The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the documents at length and recorded a finding that the claimants failed to examine eyewitnesses and further failed to establish that Jagmohan was driving the offending Metador at the time of accident, and thus, dismissed the claim petition. It is also observed by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving licence.

¶35

Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and award dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

vatti

Smt. Nandini Bharti v. Jagmohan Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nandini Bharti v. Jagmohan Bharti

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

Manrakhan Lal Khandey Vs Managing Director

Ravi Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Moolchand Kaushal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ranjana Bharti Vs Agam Das

Bhuri Bai Vs Khursheed Khan

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Deepak Banchhor