Smt Jhina Beck Vs Sunil Haribhau Pote

¶1

1

¶2

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK

¶3

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.12 11:49:17 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:11114

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 1515 of 2018

¶8

1 - Smt Jhina Beck Wd/o Late Josef Beck Aged About 26 Years Appellant No. 1 Herself, R/o Village Lodham, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Minor Sumit S/o Late Josef Beck Aged About 7 Years Next Friend, Her Mother, Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Lodham, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Minor Anup S/o Late Josef Beck, Aged About 4 Years Next Friend, Her Mother, Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Lodham, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Sunil Haribhau Pote S/o Pote 400/1, Harsh Compd, Rehanal Villtal, Bhiwand, District Thane, Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) 400601 (Owner), Maharashtra

¶14

2 - Laxman Salve S/o Narayan Salve Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Ranisawargaon, Ranisawargaon, P.S. Gangakhed, District Parbhani (Maharashtra) (Driver), District : Parbhani, Maharashtra

¶15

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office Judev Complex, Ghamarhiya Road, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

Forappellants	: None.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv.
For respondents No. 1 and 2	: None

¶18

2

¶19

MAC No. 1786 of 2018

¶20

The New India Assurance Company Limited (Wrongly Mentioned As Insurance), Branch Office Judev Complex Gamhariya Road, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - Smt. Jheena Bek Wd/o Late Joseph Bek, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Lodam, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - Minor Sumit S/o Joseph Bek, Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother. R/o Village Lodam, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - Minor Anup S/o Joseph Bek, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother. R/o Village Lodam, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

4 - Sunil Haribhau Pote S/o Pote, 400/1, Harsh Compd, Rehanal Vill Tal Bhiwand District Thane Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) 400601............Non-Applicant No. 1, District : Thane, Maharashtra

¶26

5 - Laxman Salve S/o Narayan Salve, Aged About 43 Years Driver, R/o Ranisawargaon, Police Station Gangakhed, District Parbhani (Maharashtra)..............Non-Applicant No. 2, District : Parbhani, Maharashtra

¶27

--- Respondent(s)

¶28

For appellants : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶30

Order On Board

¶31

3-3-2026

¶32

Since the above appeals have been filed by the the claimants as well as the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 23-6-2018 passed by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Jashpur (CG) in Claim Case No. 6/2017, therefore, they are being disposed of

¶33

3

¶34

by this common order.

¶35

MAC No. 1515/2018

¶36

This MAC has been filed by the claimants against above award for enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶37

Despite repeated calls, neither the appellants/claimants are present nor any representation is made on their behalf, therefore, this Court is left with no option except to dismiss MAC No. 1515/2018 for want of prosecution.

¶38

In view of above, MAC No. 1515/2028 is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶39

MAC No. 1786/2018

¶40

This MAC has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 23-6-2018 passed by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Jashpur (CG) (henceforth, referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 6/2017, whereby an amount of Rs. 8,76,400/- has been awarded to the respondents No. 1 to 3/ claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum directing the appellant/Insurance company to pay the said compensation.

¶41

Facts of the case, in brief are that, on 28/09/2016 at about 9.20 am, the deceased Joseph Beck was going towards Lodam town, when he reached in front of the veterinary hospital, the container truck bearing registration No. M.H. 04-CU- 8328 (henceforth referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) coming from Lodam town being driven by respondent No. 2/ non-applicant no. 2 at a very high speed and carelessly, hit Joseph Beck and ran the wheel of the truck (container) over him, as a result of

¶42

4

¶43

which, Joseph Beck died on the spot. The offending vehicle was insured with appellant/non-applicant no. 3 on the date of accident. Report of the accident was lodged at the police out post Lodam, on the basis of which, a crime was registered against the truck driver/ respondent No. 2 Laxman Salve under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased Joseph Beck was a 26-year-old healthy young man, he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month from labour work. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 29,25,000 on various heads, to be paid jointly and separately by the appellant herein, the driver and the owner for loss of income, loss of marital happiness, loss of affection and protection, loss of mental suffering and anguish.

¶44

Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 remained absent after service of summons, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. They have also not filed their replies.

¶45

The appellant insurance company has filed reply stating therein that the claimants did not inform the appellant insurance company about the said accident after it occurred as per the insurance conditions. The claimants have mentioned the age of the deceased as 26 years whereas in the post-mortem report, it has been mentioned as 36 years, but no document related to the age has been submitted. The deceased's income from wages has been stated to be Rs. 6,000/which is not acceptable in the absence of documents. In support of their claim, the claimants have submitted the First Information Report, seizure memo, Post-mortem report, Final Report, ownership certificate of the vehicle, permit, fitness certificate and insurance policy for 04-

¶46

5

¶47

CU-8328, but the claimants have not submitted the complete driving license, other required documents, or the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in support of their claim. The appellant has also taken a ground that from the First Information Report, it is clear that the deceased was mentally retarded and accident occurred because of his fault, further the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company would submit that, owner and driver remained absent before the Claims Tribunal and did not file driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, despite that, liability has been fastened upon the Insurance company, whereas photo copy of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle annexed by the police in the criminal case itself shows that, on the date of accident, it was not alive and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act has also been added in the charge sheet, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have held that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, but liability has been fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company. Hence, he prays that, the appeal may be admitted, the impugned award to the extent of fastening liability upon the appellant Insurance company be set aside and the appellant may be exonerated from payment of compensation.

¶49

The respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants are neither present nor represented by any counsel.

¶50

Perusal of the impugned award as well as record of the Claims

¶51

6

¶52

Tribunal shows that in para 17 of the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has specifically observed that, liability is upon the Insurance company to prove the fact that that, the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver at the time of accident in violation of policy conditions. It has further been observed by the Claims Tribunal that, in seizure memo Ex. P-4 annexed with the criminal case, licence number of the driving licence of the driver was mentioned. Seizure memo also demonstrates that, photo copy of the driving licence was annexed with the criminal case, despite that, the Insurance Company neither got verified the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle nor examined any witness in its defence. None of the terms of the Insurance policy has been proved. Even the Insurance company has not filed such photocopy of the driving licence to demonstrate the fact that it was not alive at the time of accident. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award fastening liability upon the appellant Insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶53

Nothing material has been proved by the appellant Insurance company to exonerate it from payment of compensation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶54

In view of above discussion, instant MAC is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶57

Pathak

Smt Jhina Beck v. Sunil Haribhau Pote

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jhina Beck v. Sunil Haribhau Pote

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

Balajee Real Infra. Private Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manjhiram Sahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kanchan Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Mahalaxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rita Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh