Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Sahu vs Smt. Kiran Kashyap on 17 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:33613
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1467 of 2019
1 - Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Kachha, Mathpara, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. (Dirver Cum Owner).
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Kiran Kashyap W/o Late Taran Kahsyap Aged About 39 Years
2 - Aman Chirag Kashyap S/o Late Taran Kashyap Aged About 18 Years
3 - Minor Chirag Kashyap S/o Late Taran Kashyap Aged About 15 Years
Through Natural Gaurdian Smt. Kiran Kashyap W/o Late Taran Kashyap
4 - Jhaduram Kashyap S/o Late Loknath Kashyap Aged About 70 Years
all are R/o Saddu Lig 06, House No. 921, Police Station Vidhansabha, Tahsil
And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,(Claimants).
--- Respondent(s)
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
17/07/2025
1. Appellant/non-applicant (owner-cum-driver) has filed this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of
BALRAM
PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
BALRAM PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.07.23
10:48:45 +0530
2
1988′) challenging the impugned award dated 11.04.2019, passed in
Claim Case No.93 of 2018, whereby the learned 6 th Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the
Claims Tribunal’) awarded compensation of Rs.9,55,000/- in death
case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants/respondents
seeking compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- against the death of Taran
Kashyap, who died in the road accident. It was pleaded that on
01.10.2017, at about 5:00 p.m., Taran Kashyap was returning home on
his motorcycle bearing registration number CG-04/KY/2663 after
purchasing vegetables. When he reached near Saddu VIP Colony
turn, non-applicant, while driving the offending motorcycle No. CG-
04/HV/8122, in a rash and negligent manner, collided forcefully with
the motor cycle of Taran Kashyap. As a result of the collision, Taran
Kashyap was thrown off his motorcycle and sustained serious and
grievous injuries to various parts of his body. He was immediately
admitted to Balaji Hospital for medical treatment. Unfortunately,
despite efforts to save him, he succumbed to the injuries during
treatment on 07.10.2017.
3. Non-applicant filed reply denying the allegations made in the claim
application. It was pleaded that the insurance company of the vehicle
being driven by the deceased, was not impleaded as a party
respondent; therefore, the application is not maintainable due to the
non-joinder of a necessary party. It was further contended that the
deceased was himself riding his motorcycle was coming from the
3
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the
motorcycle of the non-applicant. Hence, the deceased is solely
responsible for causing the accident.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence
placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in
part and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,55,000/- fastening
liability upon the non-applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award is
bad in law and perverse. It is further contended that this appeal is filed
on the sole ground that claimant has not impleaded the insurer and
owner of the vehicle bearing No. C.G.04-KY-2663 as party respondent,
hence, the claim application is not maintainable due to the non-joinder
of a necessary party.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record
of claim case.
7. The claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 filed an application U/s. 166 of
the Act, 1988 for grant of compensation pleading therein that on
01.10.2017 at about 5 PM deceased Taran Kashyap while travelling on
his own motor cycle bearing No.C.G.04-KY-2663 was dashed by
appellant/non-applicant by driving his motor cycle bearing No.C.G.04-
HV-8122 rashly and negligently. Learned Claims Tribunal based on the
pleadings made by both the parties have formulated five issues for
consideration including issue No.1 as to whether on 01.10.2017, non-
applicant drove his motor cycle bearing No.C.G.-04-HV-8122 rashly
and negligently, caused accident resulting in death of Taran Kashyap
4
and answered the issue in affirmative. Accident was reported in the
police station, based upon which, FIR was registered against
appellant/non-applicant and after investigation, police submitted final
report/charge-sheet for alleged offence under Section 279, 337 of
I.P.C. and Section 146/196 of M.V. Act. The learned Claims Tribunal
after considering the entire evidence available on record came to the
conclusion that appellant/non-applicant drove the motor cycle rashly
and negligently. In above facts of the case and finding of learned
Claims Tribunal, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that
claim case was not maintainable in view of non-impleadment of owner
and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.C.G.-04-KY-2663 is not
sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled. No other ground is raised by
learned counsel for appellant before this Court.
8. For the forgoing discussions, the appeal being sans merit is liable to
be and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram