Dismissed¶10

Sukhlal v. Ratmaniya

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2026MAC/1454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MAC No. 1454 of 2022; decided 10/04/2026 by Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; appeal under Section 173 MV Act by owner Sukhlal against award dated 11.10.2022 of 3rd Additional MACT Surajpur in Case No.138 of 2019; claimants Ratmaniya and family of deceased Ramesh Kumar Paikra; insurer Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd.; driver Panna Lal Paikra; tractor CG 15 DE 7955; issues: valid and effective driving licence, vehicle used for non-agriculture purpose, pay and recover direction, insurer liability; compensation Rs.12,23,600; appeal dismissed at admission stage, award affirmed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage and the Tribunal's award dated 11.10.2022 (including the pay-and-recover direction against the owner and driver) stands affirmed. ¶10

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.29 11:29:06 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16762

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1454 of 2022

¶7

1 - Sukhlal S/o Geti @ Gheti Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Davansra, Mohalla Pakhnapara, P.S. Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan), District - Surajpur (C.G.) (Owner)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ratmaniya Wd/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.) (Claimants)

¶11

2 - Ambika Lal Paikara S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Mother Ratmaniya Wd/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Anita D/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Mother Ratmaniya Wd/o Late Ramesh Kumar Paikra R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶14

¶15

5 - Laxman Paikra S/o Nanduram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶16

6 - Moharmaniya W/o Laxman Paikra Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Jhilmili, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶17

7 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Fifth Floor D.B. City Corporate Park Plot No. 1,block No. 9, Rajbandhu Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company)

¶18

8 - Panna Lal Paikra S/o Bhaiyalal Paikra Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pattiyadand, P.S. Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan) District - Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellant : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

10/04/2026

¶24

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 11.10.2022 passed by the 3^rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.138 of 2019.

¶25

2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded

¶26

¶27

compensation of Rs.12,23,600 on account of death of Ramesh Kumar Paikra in an accident that occurred on 10.4.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle tractor bearing registration No.CG 15 DE 7955 driven by respondent No.8, owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No.7.

¶28

3. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 35 years. He was engaged in agriculture, animal husbandry and dairy farming. He was earning total Rs.5,40,000 per annum. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which resulted into his death. Total compensation of Rs.46,00,000 was claimed.

¶29

4. The insurer/respondent No.7, owner/appellant and driver/respondent No.8 of the offending vehicle denied the averments of the claim application. The insurer also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was being used for the purpose other than agriculture. Therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation.

¶30

5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. While deciding issue No.2, learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record found that the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation, however, the Claims Tribunal ordered that the insurance company/respondent No.7, being the insurer of the offending

¶31

¶32

vehicle, shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and for recovery of the same the insurer will not be required to move any separate suit.

¶33

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the insurer not liable to pay the compensation. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective licence while driving the vehicle. Soil was being carried in the trolley attached with the tractor/offending vehicle for agriculture purpose, but, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was being driven for purpose other than agriculture.

¶34

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.7/insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. The finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶35

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award.

¶36

9. Though the driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied the averments of the claim application, he did not enter the witness box. Being the driver of the offending vehicle, he could adduce material evidence on record with regard to the accident and the purpose for which the offending

¶37

¶38

vehicle was being driven by him at the relevant time. Learned Claims Tribunal in detail examined the material on record to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is proper. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/award.

¶39

10. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The impugned award is afÏrmed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE

¶42

Gopal

Sukhlal v. Ratmaniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhlal v. Ratmaniya

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

Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra Singh

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini