[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kuamr Sharma vs Gyan Singh Chandra on 1 April, 2026
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:15033
SAIFAN signed
by
KHAN SAIFAN NAFR
KHAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 234 of 2019
Ram Kuamr Sharma S/o Nakchhed Prasad Sharma Aged About 47
Years R/o Village Banchhar (Chhuri) Tahsil Katghora ,district Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Gyan Singh Chandra S/o Kanshi Ram Chandra R/o Budhwari,
Bazar, Infront Of Janki Mandir ,ward No. 21, Korba ,tahsil And District
Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Asa Singh W/o Shiv Kumar Singhr/o Mannu Chowk Tikrapara
Bilapur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Branch Manger United India Insurance Company Limited ,korba
District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant/Claimant: Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate
For Insurance Company: Mr. RN Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
01.04.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant
challenging the impugned order dt. 12.12.2018, whereby learned
Claims Tribunal has rejected his application for grant of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned
Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of
the appellant by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to
the record. The evidence of appellant and one another eye-witness has
been disbelieved by the claims tribunal, whereas they have clearly
narrated the accident in which the appellant has suffered grievous
injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.01 herein. As such, the impugned
order is liable to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for
compensation suitably.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned
order and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
5. A careful perusal of the record would show that appellant- Ram
Kumar Sharma has been examined before the claims tribunal as
Witness No.01 and he has clearly stated that on the date of accident
while he was going to perform pooja, at that juncture, the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.01 herein plied the same in rash
and negligent manner, due to which, the accident in question occurred
and the claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries. Appellant- Ram
Kumar Sharma has been subjected to cross-examination, but nothing
has been extracted from him to hold contrary. Similarly, eye-witness,
namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav, who has been examined as Witness
No.02, has also supported the case of the claimant/appellant by stating
that since he was behind the offending vehicle at the time of accident he
has seen the incident of offending vehicle hitting the claimant, due to
which, he suffered injuries. As such, on the basis of aforesaid
statements, it is quite clear that on the date of accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.01 plied the same in rash and
negligent manner and hit the appellant/claimant, due to which, he
suffered serious injuries. Furthermore, FIR (Ex.P/02) was also
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent
No.01 herein and he was charge-sheeted for offence under Sections
279 & 337 of IPC. Consequently, involvement of the offending vehicle in
the accident in question is duly established and, the said vehicle, at the
time of accident was owned by the respondent No.02 herein and
insured with the respondent No.03. As such, the learned Claims tribunal
is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim of the appellant by
recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record.
Therefore, the same is hereby set aside and it is held that the appellant
is entitled for compensation.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 is
hereby set aside. The appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation,
which in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the
matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3,
this Court is computing as under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation to be awarded
No.
1. Income as per Minimum Rs.6206/- PM
Wages
2. Loss of income during Rs.6206x5 = Rs.31,030/-
treatment (for 5 months)
3. Medical Expenses & Rs.32,201/-
Transportation Bill (as per
Exhibit Ex.P/14 to Ex.P/58)
4. Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
6. Attendant Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,03,231/-
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
insurance company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle
was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the
date of accident, therefore, the respondent-insurance company is not
liable to pay the amount of compensation. However, a careful perusal of
the record would show that the insurance company did not lead any
evidence to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having
valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the date of
accident and, in absence of which, the said plea is liable to be and is
hereby rejected.
8. In view of aforesaid analysis, the appellant is held entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,03,231/-. The aforesaid amount of compensation
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
application before the Tribunal till its realization. The respondent No.03-
insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle was insured at the
time of accident, is held liable to pay the said amount of compensation
to the claimant. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent No.03-
insurance company shall deposit the amount of compensation as
awarded by this Court before the concerned claims tribunal within a
period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Thereafter, the concerned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with
regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the aforesaid
amount of compensation awarded by this Court.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated
herein-above.
sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
s@if
