SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 4609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Smt. Madhuri Bai Sannadya – Appellant
Versus
Monchu @ Hemant – Respondent
MAC/669/2017



NAFR Judgment reserved on : 24/01/2024 Judgment delivered on : 21/02/2024 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 669 of 2017

1. Smt. Madhuri Bai Sannadya Wd/o Late Sujit Kumar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Ku. Akshani Sannadya D/o Late Sujit Kumar, Aged About 7 Months, R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Dilip Kumar Sannadya S/o Late Kunram Sannadya, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Pacho Bai W/o Dilip Kumar Sannadya, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Ajit Kumar Sannadya S/o Dilip Kumar Sannadya, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants ---- Appellants Versus

1. Monchu @ Hemant S/o Hirawan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chattisgarh ................Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04 H M 6139 And Trolley No. C.G.04 H M 7083

2. Smt. Gulab Bai Gendle W/o Shri Parmanand Gendle, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Ward No.1, Post Sewar, Tahsil And P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04 H M 6139 And Trolley No. C.G.04 H M 7083

3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Office Branch No.

460401, Shantikunj, Civil Line, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur Now District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04 H M 6139 And Trolley No. C.G.04 H M 7083

4. Branch Manager, Ifco Tokio, General Insurance Company Limited, 205, 2nd Floor, M.S.Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492006 ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Akash Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

C A V Judgment

1.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed aggrieved by award dated 17/03/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District-Bilaspur (CG) in MACT No.120/2015.

2.

The appellants/claimants filed claim application under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation on various counts on account of death of Sujit Kumar in an unfortunate accident that took place on 11/12/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tractor) bearing registration No.CG-04HM-6139 by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company and Trolley was insured with respondent No.4/insurance company. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that owner and driver of the offending vehicle are not liable to pay compensation as there was no evidence of negligence on their part and the insurance companies were also not held liable to pay compensation as they had not entered into agreement covering the risk of other person.

3.

On the basis of pleadings in the claim application and written statement, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues and dismissed the claim application.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to issue No.1A and 1B is perverse. Learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident had occurred and even if the deceased climbed on the tractor-trolley without the knowledge of the driver, it cannot be said that he contributed in causing the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle ought to have driven the offending vehicle with care and caution. He submits that due to his negligence the deceased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top