Chattisgarh High Court
Bechan Yadav vs Smt. Rajkumari Nayak on 4 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:38547
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 64 of 2024
1 - Bechan Yadav S/o Late Mahabeer Yadav, Aged About 80 Years R/o
Village Badauli, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur, At Present R/o
Village Akhora, Out Post Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration
No. Cg. -15, Ae-3023),
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Rajkumari Nayak W/o Rupan Nayak, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Tukupani, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rupan Nayak S/o Late Dharam Nayak, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
Tukupani, Police Station Narayanpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ishwar Ram S/o Gudhan Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Akhora,
Out Post Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor Ae-3023) (Non -Applicant No. 1)
---Respondents
____________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rohitashava Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Digitally
Judgment On Board
signed by
BALRAM
BALRAM PRASAD
PRASAD DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.08.11
10:25:14
+0530
204/08/2025
1. This appeal Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act
of 1988”), is filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the
impugned award dated 18.10.2023, passed in Claim Case
No.41/2019, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kunkuri, District – Jashpur (C.G.) (for short “Claims Tribunal”)
allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988
seeking compensation in part and awarded Rs.12,32,525/- as
compensation to the claimants.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that an application under
Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed seeking compensation against
the death of their younger son Ajit Narayan, who died in the road
accident. It was pleaded that on 10.06.2019, Ajit Narayan was
traveling from his residence in Village Tukupani to his workplace at
Pratappur on his Yamaha motorcycle, bearing registration No.CG-
15DF-4010. He was riding his motor cycle carefully at a slow speed on
his side. At about 9:30 PM, when he reached near Kalyanpur Market
on the Ambikapur-Pratappur main road, the headlights of an
oncoming vehicle was shining in his eyes, due to which he collided
with the stationary tractor bearing registration No. CG-15AE-3023 and
a trolley No. CG-15AE-3036), owned by non-applicants, which was
parked negligently without any precautions and parking lights or
without any warning sign, on the public road. Due to the said collision,
Ajit Narayan suffered fatal injuries on his head, chest, limbs, and other
parts of the body, resulting in his death on spot.
3
3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 both jointly filed reply to the application
denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the alleged
tractor was not the cause of accident of deceased. The tractor along
with trolley was parked on the left side of the road, at a considerable
distance due to a punctured tyre and a branch of a bush was put on
the roadside and the indicator fitted in the engine of the tractor was put
on. It was further pleaded that the offending tractor was falsely
implicated in the case on false and fabricated grounds. Accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of deceased himself as he was
riding his motorcycle at a high speed in rash and negligent manner.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the
evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim
application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,32,525/- and
fastened the liability upon non-applicants/driver and owner of the
offending tractor to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and
severally.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of offending vehicle has filed
this appeal challenging the impugned awarded on the ground that
learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not holding the deceased
contributory negligent in the accident as he dashed with stationary
tractor. It is contended that the deceased collided with a stationary
vehicle that was properly parked with its parking lights on, warning
sign. The deceased was either driving at an excessive speed or was
not paying sufficient attention.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 opposes the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant and supported the
4
impugned award. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after
appreciating all the documentary and oral evidence on record, found
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the
offending tractor by non-applicant No.1, who failed to use any
indication or parking lights. The finding recorded by the learned Claims
Tribunal is on appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record,
which does not call for any interference.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the argument made by
learned counsel for the appellant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
record of the claim case.
9. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/owner of the offending vehicle that learned Claims Tribunal
erred in not holding the deceased contributory negligent in the
accident, perused the pleadings made in the claim application. Perusal
of pleadings made in the claim application would show that accident
occurred on 10.06.2019 at about 9.30 PM. The offending tractor was
parked in the dark place on public road without there being any
indication sign or putting on the indicator light of the tractor. Accident
was reported and FIR (Ex.A-3) was registered on the very next day,
which mentions that a tractor and trolley were parked diagonally on the
roadside, and deceased collided with the trolley, sustained fatal
injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. Charge-sheet was filed
against non-applicant No.1, driver on the same facts.
5
10. To prove the pleadings of negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending tractor and the pleadings made in the application, claimants
have examined claimant No.2 Rupan Naik as (A.W.-1), who in his
evidence stated according to the pleadings made in the claim
application.
11. Claimants have also examined Prabhat Sanwani as (A.W.-2) who is
eye-witness of accident. In his evidence he stated that at about 9:30
PM on the night of the accident, he saw a boy on a motorcycle collided
with the rear side of a stationary tractor-trolley near Kalyanpur. He
stated that the tractor had no parking lights or warning markings and
due to collision, the boy was seriously injured and later died on the
spot. He further stated that the tractor was of blue colour Sonalika
tractor bearing registration CG15AE 3023. In cross-examination he
denied the suggestions that the tractor was parked with indicator or
was marked with bushes. He further denied that headlights of motor
cycle was off at the time of accident.
12. Ishwar Ram, non-applicant No.1, driver of offending tractor was
examined himself as NAW-1. In his cross-examination, he admitted
that he parked the offending vehicle on the road and further conceded
that there was no radium reflector installed at the rear side of the
tractor.
13. Spot map is also filed by the claimants as (Ex.A-5) in which also the
tractor has been shown to be parked on road. In view of the
aforementioned evidence available on record, it is apparent that tractor
was parked on the road without there being any parking light or
indication light in the night at about 9.30 PM. It is undisputed fact that
6
place where the vehicle was parked and the site of the accident falls in
the middle of a dark public road. In such circumstances, if someone
parks their vehicle in the dark road without any indicators or parking
lights, the occurrence of an accident becomes inevitable. Coming of
vehicle from other side with headlight on also cannot be ruled out.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai
Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455
while examining the issue of contributory negligence has held as
under :-
“10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various
judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one
party places another in a situation of danger, which
compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate
himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if
that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of
hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of
the difficulty. In Swadling Vs. Cooper [1931] A.C. 1 at
page 9, Lord Hailsham said:
“Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some
extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute
negligence: the plaintiff has no right to complain if in
the agony of the collision the defendant fails to take
some step which might have prevented a collision
unless that step is one which a reasonably careful
man would fairly be expected to take in the
circumstances.”
15. For the foregoing discussion here-in-above and decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims
Tribunal has not committed any error in recording a finding that the
accident is result of negligent parking of the offending tractor and
7
trolley on the road and the negligence cannot be attributed on the part
of the deceased. The said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is
upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, hence, it does
not call for any interference. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal erred
in not recording a finding that the deceased was also contributory
negligent in the accident is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled.
16. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and it is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram