Diwakar Kashyap vs Umesh Kumar Rajwade
2026 Latest Caselaw 1179 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1179 Chatt
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Diwakar Kashyap vs Umesh Kumar Rajwade on 1 April, 2026

MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

2026:CGHC:14922

ANKIT
NAFR
KUMAR
SINGH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ANKIT
KUMAR SINGH

MAC No. 1021 of 2019

 Kundan Vishwakarma S/o Sukhdeo Vishwakarma, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Village Salka, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil
Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., (Claimant).
--- Appellant
versus
1. Umesh Kumar Rajwade S/o Late Ramcharan Rajwade, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village Narkeli, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur,
District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver).
2. Neeraj Kumar Pandey S/o Radha Krishna Pandey, Aged About 36
Years, R/o School Para, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.,
(Owner).
3. Ovadaya Tirkey S/o Mohar Say Tirkey, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Village Kushmaha, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents

 Diwakar Kashyap S/o Bechan Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dhouratikara, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh., (Claimant).

--- Appellant Versus

MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

1. Umesh Kumar Rajwade S/o Late Ramcharan Rajwade, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Narkeli, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver).

2. Neeraj Kumar Pandey S/o Radha Krishna Pandey, Aged About 36 Years, R/o School Para, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., (Owner).

3. Ovadaya Tirkey S/o Mohar Say Tirkey, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Kushmaha, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

For Appellants :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate.

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 01.04.2026

1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the

present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard

together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The claim applications of two appellants herein/claimants has been

rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District

Korea, Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims Tribunal") vide order dated

18.03.2019 in Claim Cases No. 80 /2015 & 30/2016 on the ground

that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending has not

been established.

MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

3. Mr. Praveen Dhrurandhar, learned counsel for the appellants, would

submit that both the claimants are the eye witness to the incident

and they have seen the incident and there is no reason to not rely

upon their statements. He would also submit that the FIR was

lodged by Diwakar (claimant) against the driver of the offending

vehicle for offence under Section 279 & 337 of the IPC and charge-

sheet filed against him is pending consideration before the

Jurisdictional Criminal Court.

4. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, would

opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant

and support the impugned award.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and gone through the records

minutely.

6. Admittedly, both the claimants are the eye witness to the incident,

they have supported the case their case by stating that offending

vehicle rashly and negligently dashed their motorcycle by which they

laid down and suffered injuries pursuant to which FIR was lodged

against the driver-Umesh Kumar Rajwade of the offending vehicle

and charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the

IPC vide Ex.P/1. In this regard observation made by their Lordships of

the Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Bai and others v. ICICI

MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and another 1 at para4

which states as under:-

"4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established"

7. Similarly, para 11 of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and others v.

ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited2 may also be noticed:-

"11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."

8. In light of principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the

Supreme Court in the above stated Judgments and in view of the

testimony of the eye witnesses and also prosecution of the driver for

offence under Section 337 of the IPC, negligence on the part of the

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992 2 (2020) 10 SCC 512

MAC No. 1021 of 2019 & MAC No. 1020 of 2019

driver is clearly established furthermore, permanent disability has

also been found by the Claims Tribunal. In that view of the matter,

the impugned order is partly set aside and the matter is remitted to

the concerned Claims Tribunal who is directed to reassess the

compensation of the claimants within 45 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this Judgment.