Ratanlal Sahu vs Smt. Anita Potai
2025 Latest Caselaw 1521 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ratanlal Sahu vs Smt. Anita Potai on 29 January, 2025

                                    1

                         Digitally signed
                         by BHOLA
                         NATH KHATAI
                         Date:
                         2025.01.31
                         10:33:29 +0530




                                                  2025:CGHC:5423


                                                           NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     MAC No. 222 of 2016

                   Reserved on 22.01.2025
                   Delivered on 29.01.2025

 Ratanlal Sahu (Driver Forest Department), Aged About 52 Years,
 By Caste Teli, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Thana And Distt. Kanker ..........
 Owner
                                                   --- Appellant
                              versus
1. Smt. Anita Potai W/o Late Mahesh Potai, Aged About 25 Years,
  By Caste Gond, R/o Kurishthakur, Tahsil And Distt. U. B. Kanker,
  Chhattisgarh
2. Bhagwan Potai S/o Manher Singh Potai, Aged About 48 Years By
  Caste Gond, R/o Kurishthakur, Tahsil And Distt. U.B.Kanker,
  Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Rambai W/o Bhagwan Singh Potai, Aged About 45 Years
  By Caste Gond, R/o Kurishthakur, Tahsil And Distt. U.B.Kanker,
  Chhattisgarh ........... Claimants
4. Rainbai Dehari W/o Late Aone Dehari, Aged About 55 Years By
  Caste Gond, R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt.
  Kanker, Chhattisgarh
5. Pramod Dehari S/o Aone Dehari, Aged About 37 Years Caste
  Gond, R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt. Kanker,
  Chhattisgarh
6. Triveni S/o Aone Dehari, Aged About 30 Years By Caste Gond,
   R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt. Kanker,
   Chhattisgarh ........... Owner
                                             --- Respondent(s)

Ratanlal Sahu (Driver Forest Department), Aged About 52 Years, S/o Late Johan Ram Sahu, By Caste Teli, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Thana And Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh .......... Owner

---Appellant Versus

1. Purushottam S/o Narsingh, Aged About 25 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Kurishthakur, Tahsil And Distt. U.B. Kanker, Chhattisgarh .......... Claimant

2. Rainbai Dehari W/o Late Aone Dehari, Aged About 55 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh

3. Pramod Dehari S/o Aone Dehari, Aged About 37 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh

4. Triveni S/o Aone Dehari, Aged About 30 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Bardevri, Tikrapara, Tahsil And Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh ........... Owner

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal CAV ORDER

1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.12.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Claim Case Nos. 91/2013 & 90/2013. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MAC No.222/2016 has been preferred against the award passed in

Claim Case No.91/2013 in respect of death of Mahesh Potai and MAC No.223/2016 has been preferred against the award passed in Claim Case No.90/2013 in respect of the injury suffered by Purushottam. Both the appeals have been preferred by the owner for exoneration from the liability of payment of compensation.

3. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of both the appeals, are that on 18.08.2013 at about 07:30 p.m., Mahesh Potai, Purushottam and Kunwar Singh were going to village Kurusthikur on motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 19 ZE 2189. When they reached Kokpur village, the son of appellant Manish Kumar Sahu driving the offending vehicle i.e. new TVS motorcycle bearing Engine No.1576174, Chassis No. MD 625 MF 56 AIW rashly and negligently dashed their motorcycle, as a result of which, Mahesh Potai succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident whereas Purushottam suffered permanent disability due to grievous injuries.

4. In Claim Case No.91/2013, preferred by the claimants who are the wife and parents of deceased Mahesh Potai, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. In Claim Case No.90/2013, preferred by injured Purushottam, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.19,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization.

5. The Tribunal has held that the TVS motorcycle (offending vehicle) was not insured. Manish Kumar Sahu who was the driver and owner of the said TVS motorcycle also died in the accident. Therefore, upon death of the owner of TVS Motorcycle Manish Kumar Sahu, the liability has been fastened upon his father Ratanlal Sahu i.e. the appellant in both these appeals. It is this fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant against which both the appeals have been preferred

praying for exoneration from the liability.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the owner of the TVS Motorcycle was Manish Kumar Sahu who was a major at that time, therefore, the liability cannot be saddled upon his father i.e. the appellant herein. He further submits that it is a case of collision between two motorcycles, therefore, contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the motorcycles should have been held by the Tribunal. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing both the appeals by exonerating him from the liability.

7. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

9. It is clear from the evidence that the accident took place between a motorcycle and a new TVS motorcycle. The driver of motorcycle Mahesh Potai died in the accident whereas the pillion rider Purushottam suffered grievous injuries. Two claim applications were filed in relation to the said accident. One was filed by the claimants of deceased Mahesh Potai under Section 163A of MV Act and the other was filed by injured Purushottam under Section 166 of MV Act. The driver of the new TVS motorcycle Manish Kumar Sahu also died in the accident. He was the owner of the said TVS motorcycle which was not insured.

10. It is also clear from the evidence of injured Purushottam Kumeti (PW-2) that on 18.08.2013 when he along with Mahesh Potai and one Kunwar Singh were returning to village Kurusthikur, the TVS motorcycle coming from opposite direction collided with their motorcycle, due to which Mahesh Potai died and he suffered grievous injuries. This fact has not been challenged by the onwer side.

11. The Tribunal has held that the driver of TVS motorcycle Manish

Kumar died in the accident. He was the owner of the said TVS motorcycle. After his death, the ownership of the TVS motorcycle comes to his father Ratanlal Sahu i.e. the appellant. Therefore, the appellant being the father of the driver & owner Manish Kumar Sahu is liable for payment of compensation. When the father is entitled to get the property of the deceased after his death, he is also liable to pay the liabilities of the deceased. Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the said finding of the Tribunal regarding liability.

12. As regards contributory negligence, the claim application in respect of death of Mahesh Potai was filed under section 163A of the MV Act and under this section, the claimants are not obligated to establish that such death had happened owing to the wrongful act or negligent or default of the driver/owner. In a claim application filed u/s 163-A MV Act, no negligence is required to be proved and it amounts to no fault liability. Hence, the no-fault liability principle applies here. So far as the claim filed by injured Purusottam under Section 166 of MV Act is concerned, there is no evidence on record to hold contributory negligence on the part of the deceased nor is there any report against the deceased nor any witness has been examined in this regard on behalf of the appellant side. Hence, the ground of contributory negligence is not acceptable.

13. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the finding/conclusion of the Tribunal regarding liability and contributory negligence. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai