Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Shikha Meshram vs Alok Kumar Singh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:25472
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 206 of 2019
1 - Ku. Shikha Meshram D/o Late Yuvraj Meshra Aged About 19 Years
2 - Yash Meshram S/o Late Yuvraj Meshram Aged About 15 Years, minor :
through their Legal Guardian Appellant No. 3
3 - Smt. Leela Meshram W/o Shamrao Meshram Aged About 69 Years
All are of R/o- House No. B/101, Road No. 13, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil
And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Alok Kumar Singh S/o Late T.K. Singh R/o- Pragati Nagar, Risali, Plot No.
09, Shantikunj, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Future General India Limited Through- Corporate/registered Office, 001
Delta Plaza, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Future Genrali India Insurance Company Limted, Through Claim Manager,
Shop No. 3, Second Floor, Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol
Pump, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh on behalf of
Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
18/06/2025
1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment dated
BALRAM 21.08.2018, passed in Claim Case No.1453/2012, whereby the
PRASAD
DEWANGAN
learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg,
District - Durg (C.G.) has dismissed the claim application for grant of
compensation filed by the appellants/claimants as against the death of
Yuvraj Meshram, who died in the road accident.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants
filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total
compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- under different heads on account of
the death of Yuvraj Meshram, pleading therein that on 01.01.2012,
Yuvraj Meshram along with his wife Kalpana Meshram and their
children were returning from Bhilai in his Car bearing registration
No.C.G.-07-MA-3416 from Jagdalpur when they reached near Khallari
bridge Gunderdehi, due to failure of the steering of the car, they met
with an accident. In the accident Kalpana Meshram died on the spot
and Yuvraj Meshram suffered severe injuries. He was immediately
taken to Sector-9 Hospital where during the course of treatment he
died. It was pleaded that at the time of accident deceased Yuvraj
Meshram was working as Superintending Engineer and getting annual
salary of Rs.6,42,516/-.
3. The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim
application and resisted the claim. The learned Claims Tribunal upon
appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by
respective parties, dismissed the claim of the claimants/appellants
holding that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims
Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of the appellants/claimants
and the witnesses that the car driven by the deceased Yuvraj
Meshram met with an accident and turned turtuled due to mechanical
fault in its steering on extraneous consideration. It is contended that
the claimants in the claim application has specifically pleaded that the
car met with an accident due to its mechanical fault i.e. failure of
steering. The offending vehicle was got examined by the mechanic on
the direction of police and as per the vehicle examination report of the
mechanic, he found failure of steering. The vehicle examination report
is filed as Ex.P-10. The mechanic Jagdip Singh is examined as AW-2,
who in his evidence clearly stated that upon examination of the vehicle
he found the steering of the vehicle failed apart from other damage
caused to the vehicle due to the accident. This witness was cross
examined by the counsel for non-applicant therein and in the evidence
of the Jagdip Singh (AW-2), nothing suggestive has come that the
steering can even failed due to the nature of accident also.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would
submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence
available on record had recorded a finding that the accident is the
result of self negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. He also
contended that the witness Jagdip Singh (AW-2) (Mechanic) in his
evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal has not stated as to since
when the steering of the offending vehicle failed and therefore, tribunal
rightly disbelieved the evidence of Jagdip Singh (AW-2).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
7. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has
framed the issue No.2 as to whether the accident was result of the self
negligence of the deceased Yuvraj Meshram and answered the issue
No.2 in affirmative. The learned Claims Tribunal considered the
pleadings in the reply of the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company
that accident is the result of self negligence of the deceased/driver and
have placed reliance upon the statement recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. by the police, who investigated the crime of accident and
mentioned that vehicle met with an accident as it was driven in a high
speed by the driver and further considered the evidence of Jagdip
Singh (AW-2) (Mechanic) and mentioned that this witness shows his
inability to state as to how many days prior to examination of the
vehicle the steering got failed, further that steering of the car was
power steering and it got locked from inside and further that this
witness has not specifically stated that steering was locked prior to the
accident or after the accident.
8. Perusal of the deposition of the Jagdip (AW-2) would show that this
witness in his evidence has stated that on examination of the offending
vehicle bearing No.C.G.-07-MA 3416 he found steering of the vehicle
failed. No question has been put to this witness either by the Tribunal
or by the counsel appearing for the non-applicant therein about the
failure of the steering prior to accident or after accident. In absence of
any such evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court, the
learned Claims Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that from
the evidence of the mechanic it is not clear that the accident occurred
due to locking of the steering and has placed reliance upon the
document of the criminal case to record a finding that the vehicle at
the time of accident was running in a high speed.
9. In case of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer, reported in 2005 (1) WN 91, the
Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that
"In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that
the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect,
unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had
erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it
differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the
aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and
accordingly dislodge the same".
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited & Others, reported in (2018) 5 SCC
656 has observed that for deciding the claim case it is the pleading
and the evidence of the claim proceedings are only to be considered
and not to the documents of the criminal case. In the case at hand
also, statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police
has not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in relying upon the contents of the statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is part of the charge-
sheet in the criminal case.
11. Claimants in the claim application have pleaded that as to how the
accident happened i.e. due to mechanical failure of the offending
vehicle and further in support of that plea had also examined the
mechanic, who earlier examined the vehicle on being asked by the
police authorities and has also submitted the documents in evidence
as Ex.P-10C before the learned Claims Tribunal mentioning that he
found the steering of the vehicle failed (locked) upon examining the
vehicle.
12. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record that there
was mechanical failure of the steering of the vehicle, in the opinion of
this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the
accident occurred due to the self negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle, on the basis of document of criminal case, is
erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the said
finding is set-aside and it is held that the accident of the offending
vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure of the steering of the
offending vehicle.
13. As the learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed the compensation to
be awarded to the appellants/claimants, therefore, the case is remitted
back to the learned Claims Tribunal only to compute the amount of
compensation to be awarded to the claimants based on the
documentary and oral evidence available on record.
14. For the forgoing discussions appeal is allowed in part and the matter is
remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal. The parties are directed
to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 4th of August, 2025.
15. Registry is directed to send back the record of the claim case
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
