Girish Kumar Mishra Vs Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

4. Ku. Anuska D/o G. K. Mishra Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Her Guardian Mother Namrata Mishra, D/o Girish Kumar Mishra, W/o Hariom Shukla, Aged About 33 Years R/o Chilhati, Mopka, Thana- Sarkanda, District/ Tahsil- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶11

5. Arsh Kumar S/o G. K. Mishra Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Namrata Mishra, D/o Girish Kumar Mishra, W/o Hariom Shukla, Aged About 33 Years R/o Chilhati, Mopka, Thana- Sarkanda, District/ Tahsil- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶12

--- Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1. Aaditya Kumar Pradhan S/o Sadhusharan Pradhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Haldi Nali, Post- Gargar Bahal, Thana- Charmal, DistrictSambalpur (Odisa) (Driver)

¶15

2. Santosh Kumar Agrawal R/o Ward No. 22, Tiwari Gali, Khetrajpur, DistrictSambalpur (Odisa) (Owner)

¶16

3. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District/ Tahsil- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer)

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

2

¶19

WITH

¶20

MAC No. 1484 of 2023

¶21

1. Girish Kumar Mishra S/o Sudama Prasad Mishra, Aged About 57 Years R/o Chilhati, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

---Appellant(s)

¶23

Versus

¶24

1. Aaditya Kumar Pradhan S/o. Sadhusharan Pradhan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Haldi Nali, Post Gargar Bahal, Thana Charmal, District Sambalpur (Odisa)

¶25

2. Santosh Kumar Agrawal R/o Ward No. 22, Tiwari Gali, Khetrajpur, District Sambalpur (Odisa)

¶26

3. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur District/ Tahsil Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶27

		---Respondent(s)
For Appellants	:	Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For Insurance Company	:	Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶28

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶29

Judgment On Board

¶30

8.1.2026

¶31

1. By way of these appeals, appellants have assailed the awards passed by the learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Cases No. 330/2018 and 329/2018 dated 3.7.2023 whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim applications.

¶32

2. Girish Kumar Mishra and four others preferred Claim Case No. 330/2018 seeking compensation on account of death of Nitish Kumar Mishra in road accident whereas Girish Kumar Mishra

¶33

3

¶34

preferred Claim Case No. 329/2018 claiming therein damages caused to the car to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-.

¶35

3. Facts of the present cases are that on 9.2.2016, deceased Nitish Kumar Mishra was driver of TATA Aria car bearing registration No. CG-12-AK-9860. He was going to a Dhaba situated at Durg Bypass along with friends. The car was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. OD-15-C-2963 coming from opposite direction. In the accident, Nitish Kumar Mishra sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment.

¶36

4. Parents and siblings of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 wherein they pleaded that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month working as Executive at Shriram Finance. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 40,70,000/from the respondents jointly as well as severally. The TATA Aria car was registered in the name of father of the deceased i.e. Girish Kumar Mishra, who filed claim case under Section 166(2) of MV Act, 1988 claiming therein damages caused to the car to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-.

¶37

5. Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim applications. It pleaded that driver of the car was himself negligent and he damaged and crossed the central divider and dashed a running truck coming from opposite direction. A specific plea was taken that Girish Kumar Mishra was the registered

¶38

4

¶39

owner of the TATA Aria car which was being driven by deceased Nitish Kumar Mishra himself, thus, he had stepped in the shoes of the owner of vehicle, therefore claim case under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 against the owner and Insurance Company was not maintainable. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, learned Tribunal passed respective awards whereby claim applications were dismissed.

¶40

6. Mr. Samir Singh, counsel for the appellants/ claimants submits that there was negligence on the part of driver of truck and claimants adduced sufficient evidence to prove the same. He further submits that learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim applications only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He contends that there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased while driving the car damaged and crossed the central divider and dashed a running truck coming from opposite direction. He further contends that estimate/ bill was placed on record in order to claim compensation for damages caused to the car but learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the same. He prays to set aside the respective awards passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶41

7. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, counsel for the Insurance Company submits that deceased Nitish Kumar Mishra was the son of Girish Kumar Mishra, who was the registered owner of vehicle (car) and thus, Nitish Kumar Mishra had stepped into the

¶42

5

¶43

shoes of the owner of vehicle, therefore claim case filed under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 was not maintainable. He further submits that Mohan Lal Soni, Head Constable (Rtd.) who conducted the investigation deposed that accident took place due to negligence on the part of deceased himself and Jitendra Kumar, Assistant Manager also supported the case of Insurance Company therefore, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim applications and claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

¶44

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶45

9. Admittedly, the TATA Aria car was being driven by deceased Nitish Kumar Mishra on 9.2.2016. The said vehicle was registered in the name of Girish Kumar Mishra, father of deceased. The car damaged and cross the central divider and hit a running truck coming from opposite direction. Resultantly, Nitish Kumar Mishra suffered grievous injuries and died.

¶46

10. Namrata Mishra (AW/1) who is the sister of deceased stated on affidavit that car of the deceased was hit by the truck coming from opposite direction. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that she was not an eye-witness. In para-10, she admitted that deceased while driving the car damaged and crossed the central divider and dashed the truck. Trilokpati Sharma (AW/2), who was an eye-witness stated that accident took place on the opposite side of the central divider. Four separate police statements (Ex.D/1 through D/5) provided by Rinku, Aditya Kumar, Umakant

¶47

6

¶48

Pandey, Trilokpati Sharma and Sandeep Kumar uniformly indicate that the accident occurred when the car crossed the central divider and hit the truck due to rash and negligent driving.

¶49

11. Mohanlal Soni (NA-W/1) who is retired Head Constable in para – 4 stated the car driver was solely negligent and there was no negligence on the part of driver of the truck. According to his statement, the car crossed the central divider and struck the truck In cross-examination, this witness remained firm.

¶50

12. In a claim application moved under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988, claimants have to prove negligence on the part of offending vehicle and in absence of any such proof, claim application would not be maintainable. From the evidence led by the parties as discussed above, inference can be drawn to the effect that driver of the car i.e. deceased was solely negligent in causing the accident which took his life.

¶51

13. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned awards. Accordingly, these appeals, being devoid of merit, are liable to be and hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶52

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶53

A j i n k y a

Girish Kumar Mishra v. Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kumar Mishra v. Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

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

Branch Manager-Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Malti Kurre

Awadh Kishore Vs Harjeet Singh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Anita Netam

Girish Kumar Mishra Vs Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

Prakash Patel Vs Omprakash Gendre

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rashmi Devi