Dismissed¶42

Balkeshwar Kujur v. Silas Sai

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2026MAC/1431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 1431 of 2018, High Court of Chhattisgarh; motor accident death claim under Section 166 MV Act; rash and negligent driving of motorcycle CG-15-CS-9008; contributory negligence defence rejected; non-impleadment of deceased's vehicle insurer caused no prejudice; Tribunal's compensation assessment upheld; enhancement plea not entertainable in driver/owner appeal; appeal against MACT Ambikapur award dated 28.06.2018 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle was dismissed and the impugned award dated 28.06.2018 was left undisturbed. ¶42

Balkeshwar Kujur Vs Silas Sai — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle was dismissed and the impugned award dated 28.06.2018 was left undisturbed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of Nirmal Ekka was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle (No. CG-15-CS-9008) by appellant No. 1, or whether the deceased himself was driving negligently so as to attract contributory negligence. +3 more

¶30

Court's answer

The Tribunal returned a well-reasoned finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by appellant No. 1; the appellants' contention of contributory negligence was not borne out from cogent evidence, and mere allegations that the deceased was driving without a licence or was a minor were insufficient to dislodge the categorical finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The non-impleadment of the insurer of the deceased's vehicle has not been shown to have caused any prejudice so as to vitiate the proceedings, particularly as liability was rightly fastened upon the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶39

Key takeaways

The assessment of compensation by the Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased and the facts of the case, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal and calls for no interference in appellate jurisdiction.ratio¶39
The plea for enhancement raised by the claimants does not arise for consideration in the present appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents appeal by the driver and owner of the offending motorcycle (CG-15-CS-9008) against the award dated 28.06.2018 of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (Central Filing No. 30/2017), which had awarded compensation to the claimants for the death of Nirmal Ekka in the accident of 01.01.2016 and fastened liability on the appellants and respondent No. 6 (insurer) jointly and severally. The appellants contended contributory negligence on the part of the deceased minor, misjoinder in the non-impleadment of the insurer of the deceased's vehicle, and absence of proof of income. Held: the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving by appellant No. 1 stood on cogent evidence and mere allegations that the deceased drove without a licence or was a minor could not dislodge it; non-impleadment of the victim vehicle's insurer caused no prejudice since liability lay on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle; the compensation assessed, considering the age of the deceased, was neither arbitrary nor illegal; and the claimants' enhancement plea did not arise for consideration in a driver-and-owner appeal. Appeal dismissed (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., 14/01/2026).

¶1

¶2

JATRAGHVENDRA Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2026:CGHC:2351

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1431 of 2018

¶7

1 - Balkeshwar Kujur S/o S/o Shivnath Ram Aged About 35 Years Driver Motorcycle Discover No. Cg. 15 Cs/9008 R/o Village Bakalo, Uparpara, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. .........Non Claimant, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Dashhara S/o S/o Toti Aged About 45 Years Vehicle Owner, Motorcycle Discover No. C.G. 15, Cs/ 9008, R/o Village Sakhauli, Nawapara, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Silas Sai S/o S/o Late Latthi Ram Ekka Aged About 42 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Namely Silas Sai, R/o Village Laigu, Police Station And Tahsil Batoli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. .............Claimants., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Smt. Ramkunwar W/o W/o Silas Sai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Laigu, Police Station And Tahsil Batoli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Kumari Rubiya D/o D/o Silas Sai Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Laigu, Police Station And Tahsil Batoli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - Kumari Renuka D/o D/o Silas Sai Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Namely Silas Sai, R/o Village Laigu,

¶15

¶16

Police Station And Tahsil Batoli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶17

5 - Kumari Rinki D/o D/o Silas Sai Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Namely Silas Sai, R/o Village Laigu, Police Station And Tahsil Batoli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶18

6 - Branch Manager Bhartiya Eksa General Insurance Company Limited, 6th Floor Mega Mall, Mall Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. ............Non Applicant No. 3., District : Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh.

¶19

7 - Branch Manager Bhartiya Eksa General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Chawala Complex First Floor, Devendra Nagar (Sai Nagar Road) Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No. 1	: Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.
to 5
For Respondent No. 6	: None.
For Respondent No. 7	: Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate.

¶21

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

14/01/2026

¶24

The appeal is the driver’s and owner’s appeal against the award dated 28.6.2018 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Central Filing No. 30/2017.

¶25

Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

¶26

¶27

claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of the death of deceased Nirmal Ekka, stating that on 01.01.2016 at about 5:00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Police Station Darima, District Sarguja, near Pandopara Bridge, Village Pondi, the appellant No. 1, while driving Motorcycle No. CG-15-CS-9008 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the father of the deceased, resulting in the instantaneous death of Nirmal Ekka; it was further pleaded that at the relevant time the deceased, along with his father and one Santosh, was travelling on Motorcycle No. CG-15-CJ-6875, and when the father stopped the motorcycle near Pandopara Bridge to attend a call of nature, the deceased and Santosh were seated on the stationary vehicle, when the offending motorcycle, driven rashly and negligently, struck the said vehicle causing grievous injuries to the deceased, who died on the spot, whereupon the claim petition was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation with interest. The appellants filed their written statement denying the allegations and contending that the deceased himself was driving Motorcycle No. CG-15-CJ-6875 in violation of traffic rules with three persons riding thereon, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, involving a collision between two vehicles, thereby attracting contributory negligence; it was further pleaded that the insurer of the deceased’s vehicle was a necessary party and, having not been impleaded, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed with costs. Respondent No. 6

¶28

¶29

also filed a written statement denying liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with it at the time of the incident and that the insurance documents were forged and fabricated, and thus the claim was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, vide impugned award dated 28.06.2018 passed in Central Filing No. 30/2017, awarded compensation on account of the death of Nirmal Ekka and directed the appellants and respondent No. 6 to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record, which clearly establishes that the deceased minor, Nirmal Ekka, was himself driving another vehicle in a public place without being authorized to do so, being a minor and not holding any valid driving licence, and therefore the liability, if any, ought to have been fastened upon the deceased vehicle, its driver, owner, and insurer; it is further contended that although in paragraphs 9 and 15 of the impugned award the Tribunal itself recorded a finding that the deceased was driving the vehicle, the liability to pay compensation has nevertheless been wrongly shifted upon the owner of the other vehicle, which is contrary to settled principles of law; the appellants had specifically raised the

¶31

¶32

defence of contributory negligence, yet without impleading or making the insurance company of the deceased’s vehicle a necessary party, the learned Tribunal proceeded to pass the award, rendering the same unsustainable and liable to be quashed; it is also submitted that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by any cogent evidence, and despite the absence of proof regarding income, the learned Tribunal illegally and arbitrarily assessed and awarded compensation; further, without conclusively determining as to who was actually driving rashly and negligently, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award and wrongly fastened liability upon the owner, which vitiates the entire award; it is lastly submitted that the appellants have duly deposited the mandatory amount of Rs. 25,000/- for filing the appeal, and the appellants reserve their right to raise additional grounds and to place all relevant documents before this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶34

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 7 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the

¶35

¶36

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶37

None for respondent No. 6.

¶38

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

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal has duly considered the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record and has returned a well-reasoned finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by appellant No. 1. The contention of the appellants regarding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is not borne out from cogent evidence, and mere allegations that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a licence or was a minor are insufficient to dislodge the categorical finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal. The non-impleadment of the insurer of the deceased’s vehicle has also not been shown to have caused any prejudice so as to vitiate the proceedings, particularly when the liability has been rightly fastened upon the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The assessment of compensation by the Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased and the facts of the case, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, nor does it call for interference in appellate jurisdiction. At the same time, the plea for enhancement raised by the claimants does not arise for

¶40

¶41

consideration in the present appeal filed by the appellants.

¶42

Accordingly, the impugned award dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, warrants no interference.

¶43

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, on the face, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby

¶44

dismissed .

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶47

Judge

¶48

Raghu Jat

Balkeshwar Kujur v. Silas Sai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkeshwar Kujur v. Silas Sai

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

Sharad Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Singh Vs the Chairman

Harbansh Singh ( Nanhu Bhai ) Vs Returning Officer, Local Election

Sourabh Bodani Vs Kanhaiyalal Gidwani

Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh