Ratan Singh Sivana Vs Nirmal Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15878

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 695 of 2020

¶6

1 - Ratan Singh Sivana S/o Ghana Ram Sivana Aged About 61 Years R/o Shitalapara, Ward No. 04, Thana And Tehsil- Pakhanjur, District- North HARNEET KAUR Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR2 - Dikeshwari Sivana W/o Ratan Singh Sivana Aged About 49 Years R/o Date: 2026.04.08 11:03:56 +0530 Shitalapara, Ward No. 04, Thana And Tehsil- Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Homendra S/o Ratan Singh Sivana Aged About 27 Years R/o Shitalapara, Ward No. 04, Thana And Tehsil- Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Kamini D/o Ratan Singh Sivana Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Ratan Singh Sivana, R/o Shitalapara, Ward No. 04, Thana And Tehsil- Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Nirmal Kumar S/o Late Shri Narad Ram Dahariya Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Gobra, Thana- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle)

¶13

2 - Laxmi Narayan S/o Chova Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o- Village Kareli Chhoti, Tehsil And Thana- Magarload, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle)

¶14

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager- Branch Office, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None though served.

¶18

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶19

Judgment On Board

¶20

07.04.2026

¶21

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 25/09/2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 109/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 holding that there is a delay in lodging FIR and it could not be proved that the accident occurred from the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing Registration No. C.G. 05 AA 2755.

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶23

3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served.

¶24

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, considered his submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶25

3

¶26

5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the accident occurred on 19/12/2017 and FIR was lodged on the same date against unknown vehicle. Thereafter, the Tractor bearing Registration No. C.G. 05 AA 2755 was seized on 26/07/2018 and charge-sheet has been filed on 28/07/2018. Though the FIR was initially lodged against unknown vehicle but after investigation, the Tractor was seized and charge-sheet was filed and though there is a delay in filing of the charge-sheet, but that merely cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim application particularly when the driver of the Tractor i.e. respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC before the jurisdictional criminal court. Moreover, nothing has been brought on record by the Insurance Company to establish that the Tractor in question was not involved in the accident. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal to consider the question of negligence and quantum of compensation (if any) and pass a fresh award after hearing the parties within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶28

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶29

Harneet

Ratan Singh Sivana v. Nirmal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh Sivana v. Nirmal Kumar

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

K.P.Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mithila Yadav Vs Krishnachandra Pandey

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dhaniram Yadav

Dashru Ram Markam Vs Puranik Lal Deshmukh

Smt. Kaleshwari Nirmalkar Vs Tulesh Vaishnav

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Nayantara Bhagat