Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:1902

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 671 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Pramila Bai Wd/o Late Pawan Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bhandari Bharda, Post Amgaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Smt. Khorbahrin Wd/o Late Bishal Nai Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Bhandari Bharda, Post Amgaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Hemant Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Pawan Kumar Kaushik Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pramila Bai, R/o Village Bhandari Bharda, Post Amgaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Tarun Kumar S/o Late Pawan Kumar Kaushik Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pramila Bai, R/o Village Bhandari Bharda, Post Amgaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Sonuram Netam S/o Dhaniram Netam Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhandari Bharda, Post Amgaon, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶14

2 - Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Dauwaram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khaprikala, Post Bakal, Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶15

3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 2nd Floor, New Bus Stand Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants	---------------------- :	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3	:	Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate alongwith Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

13.01.2026

¶21

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31.3.2023, passed in Claim Case No.20 of 2021 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

¶22

The facts, in brief, are that on 26.10.2020 at about 7:00 pm, deceased Pawan Kumar was traveling as a pillion-rider on a motorcycle, which was dashed by a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.C.G. 07 M 3900. In the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Merg intimation was given at police station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon on the same day. After conducting the merg enquiry, the police registered an FIR on 17.11.2020 against the driver of the offending Car. The claimants, who are widow, mother and two minor children filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the deceased was running a saloon and earning Rs.1,500/- per day. They claimed a sum of Rs.1,45,50,000/-. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle as

¶23

3

¶24

well as the Insurance Company filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. They pleaded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident at all and that the FIR was lodged after one month without explaining the delay. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and did not examine material witnesses to prove the factum of the accident.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling was dashed by the offending Car on 26.10.2020 and that immediately thereafter, merg intimation was registered at police station Dongargaon at about 21:15 hours. He would contend that the intimation was given by Constable Bharat Mandavi. He would submitted that after investigation, the police seized the offending vehicle on 24.11.2020 and thereafter, filed a chargesheet. He would contend that the driver and owner never made any complaint before the Superior Police Authorities against the seizure of the offending vehicle and registration of FIR. He would further submit that Pradeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector (NAW-1), examined by the Insurance Company, has proved the fact that FIR was registered by the police after merg enquiry. He would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while dismissing the claim petition. He would pray to allow this appeal.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would contend that in the final report, it is nowhere stated that as to how the

¶27

4

¶28

police came to know with regard to involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. He would contend that the claimants have not placed on record the statements of the witnesses recorded during course of investigation to substantiate that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the witnesses. He would further submit that Dhalendra Kumardewdas, who was riding the motorcycle has not been examined by the claimants. It is also argued that none of the witnesses has stated in police statement with regard to involvement of the vehicle. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

The present case relates to an accident that occurred on 26.10.2020 in which the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Merg intimation was registered on the same day against an unknown vehicle. After conducting the merg enquiry, the police registered the FIR on 17.11.2020 and seized the offending vehicle on 24.11.2020 but the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to make any complaint against registration of FIR, seizure of their vehicle before the Superior Police Authorities.

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others , reported in AIR 2018 SC 1900 held that point of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by

¶32

5

¶33

standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Thus, subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ranjeet and Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10351 of 2019 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.

¶34

The witnesses, namely Pradeep Kumar (Sub-Inspector) examined by the Insurance Company has categorically stated that after the merg enquiry, FIR was registered. He further stated that the investigation was conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector/ Govardhan Deshmukh. This witness has admitted that the statement of an eyewitness was not part of the case-diary but the claim petition ought not to have been dismissed on that ground alone. This witness has further admitted the fact that the statement of Dhalendra Kumardewdas, who was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, was recorded by the police.

¶35

Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is

¶36

6

¶37

hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for fresh consideration. The record be sent forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.2.2026.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶40

Nimmi

Smt. Pramila Bai v. Sonuram Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pramila Bai v. Sonuram Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assistant Engineer and Others Vs Daulatram Sahu and Another

Kunjal Prasad Rajwade Vs Lalita Gupta

Santosh Sarthi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tileshwar Prasad

Tirath Deshmukh Vs Balram Tandan

Bhagirathi Vs Thakur Prasad Singar