Chattisgarh High Court
Kalyan Singh vs Dhansai Thakur on 11 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.16
17:42:14 +0530
2025:CGHC:16990
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1177 of 2018
1. Kalyan Singh S/o Late Ramayan Singh Aged About 69 Years
Caste Kanwar Occupation Dependent, R/o Village - Anantpur,
Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Sandeshi Bai W/o Shri Kalyan Singh Aged About 64 Years
Caste Kanwar, Occupation - Depended, R/o Village - Anantpur,
Police Station Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
3. Suryakant S/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh Aged About 17 Years
Minor, Caste Kanwar, Through His Natural Guardian i.e. Kalyan
Singh (Appellant No.1), R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station
Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
4. Ku. Stuti D/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh Aged About 8 Years
Minor, Caste Kanwar, Through Her Natural Guardian i.e. Kalyan
Singh ( Appellant No.1) , R/o Village - Anantpur, Police Station
Prem Nagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Dhansai Thakur S/o Shri Rampyare Thakur Aged About 39 Years
Occupation - Advocacy, R/o Village Kanwarpur, Post Office And
Police Station - Lakhnpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver
Of The Motor Cycle Splendor CG 15 C A 6739)
2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Near
2
Kumkum Hotel, Bramh Road, Ambikapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. CG 15 CP 6233 )
3. Jitendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Awadh Prasad Singh, R/o Village
Taraju, Post Jamgala, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner
Vehicle No. C G 15 CA 6739)
4. Ku. Pritirupa Singh Aged About 15 (Now 19) Years, D/o Late
Krishna Kumar Singh Caste - Kanwar R/o Village Anantpur, Police
Station Prem Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.(Claimant No.
3)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate, on
behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
11/04/2025
1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
arises out of the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by 1st Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
in Central Filing No.231/2014 whereby the claim application
preferred by the claimants has been rejected.
2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on
17.03.2014 at about 2 pm, deceased Krishna Kumar Singh was
going from village Anantpur to Ambikapur on his sold motorcycle
Honda Twister No. CG 15 CP 6233 to deliver Holi sweets to his son
and daughter. When he reached near village Navapara Jagga turn,
respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur driving the offending motorcycle
Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 15 CA 6739 in a
rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle, as a result of which,
Krishna Kumar suffered grievous injuries and died.
3
3. The claimants who are the parents and children of the deceased
preferred a claim application under section 166 of the MV Act
before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.45,51,000/-.
Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on
record, rejected their claim application vide impugned order dated
14.05.2018, leading to the filing of this appeal.
4. The basis for rejection of the claim application by the Tribunal is that
firstly it is not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligence driving of respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur and
secondly the deceased was the owner and driver of Honda Twister
on which he was travelling but he had not paid any premium for
the owner & driver.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-claimants is that
the accident was caused by respondent No.1 Dhansai by hitting the
motorcycle of deceased Krishna Kumar with the motorcycle in
question, therefore, considering the negligence on the part of
respondent No.1, the award should be passed. The second
argument is that the motorcycle Honda Twister on which the
deceased was travelling was insured by respondent No.2
Insurance Company and the Policy was a package policy under
which the risk of the owner/driver was also covered, therefore, the
respondent No.2 is liable for compensation. Hence, prayed for
allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable compensation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1
& 3 submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned order of dismissal is just and proper and does not require
any interference.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is a case of collision between two motorcycles. One motorcycle
Honda Twister No.CG 15 CP 6233 was being driven by Krishna
4
Kumar Singh who died in the accident. The said motorcycle was
owned by deceased Krishna Kumar himself and it was insured with
respondent No.2. Another motorcycle was Hero Honda Splendor
bearing registration No.CG 15 CA 6739 which was being driven by
respondent No.1 Dhansai Thakur, owned by respondent No.3 and it
was not insured.
9. As regards the first argument of the appellants that considering the
negligence on the part of respondent No.1 the award should be
passed, the father of the deceased, Kalyan Singh (AW-1) has been
examined on behalf of the claimants who is not the spot witness.
His oral evidence regarding negligence on the part of respondent
No.1 has not been corroborated by any eye witness. Charge sheet
has not been filed in the case. Considering the evidence brought on
record, the Tribunal, while discussing this issue in detail in
paragraphs- 15 & 16, has held that from the evidence it is proved
that the accident occurred due to collision between two motorcycles
but it is not proved that the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent driving by respondent No.1. It is also not stated in the
evidence of claimants that the Police had filed any charge sheet
against respondent No.1 Dhansai regarding the accident. Rather as
per the written statement of Dhansai, the Police had submitted a
closure report on the FIR lodged against him. As such, it is not
proved that on the date, time and place of incident, the respondent
No.1 caused the accident by driving the offending motorcycle in a
rash and negligent manner. Thus, the said finding of the Tribunal
being based on the evidence on record does not require any
interference.
10. The second argument of the appellant is that the motorcycle Honda
Twister was insured by respondent No.2 and the Policy was a
package policy under which the risk of the owner & driver was also
covered, therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable for compensation.
5
In this regard, the Administrative Officer Rakesh Kumar Vidyarthi
NAW-1) has been examined on behalf of the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company who has proved the insurance policy of
motorcycle Honda Twister No. CG 15 CP 6233 exhibited as Ex.D-1.
As per the insurance policy Ex.D-1, no premium amount was paid
to cover the risk of the owner or driver. Deceased Krishna Kumar
was the owner of motorcycle Honda Twister. He himself was
driving the said motorcycle when the accident took place. The
Tribunal while discussing it in paragraphs 23-29 of the impugned
order has held that though the policy was a package policy but no
premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner/driver, therefore,
the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from the
respondent No.2 – insurance company. This finding of the Tribunal
also appears to be proper.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any irregularity or
error in the impugned order of dismissal of the claim application
calling for interference. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back
forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai