Chattisgarh High Court
Pushpa Agrawal vs Kush Yadav on 16 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.04.22
17:06:37 +0530
2025:CGHC:17523
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1682 of 2018
Pushpa Agrawal W/o Ram Kishore Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o-
Guru Ghasidas Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil-
Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Kush Yadav S/o Darasram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o- Near
Girls School, Ward No. 12, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil- Akaltara, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2 - Darasram Yadav S/o Lagan Sai Aged About 62 Years R/o- Near Girls
School, Ward No. 12, Akaltara, P.S. And Tahsil- Akaltara, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents : None
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
16/04/2025
1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
arises out of the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by 3rd Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
2
MACT No.32/2017 whereby the claim application preferred by the
appellant/claimant has been rejected.
2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in short, was that on
06.04.2016 at about 10 AM, the appellant/claimant was busy in
house construction work at that time, Respondent no.1 rashly and
negligently drove the motorcycle bearing registration CG-11-M-
5061 and dashed the Appellant due to which she sustained fracture
on her right wrist and also sustained injuries on other parts of her
body, therefore, the claimant had preferred a claim application
under section 166 of the MV Act before the Claims Tribunal
claiming total compensation of Rs.7,06,592/-.
3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on
record, rejected her claim application vide impugned order dated
04.09.2018, leading her to filing this appeal.
4. The basis for rejection of the claim application is that the Tribunal
did not believe from the evidence that the injury sustained by the
injured/Appellant was caused as a result of the collision with the
motorcycle and hence the Tribunal has rejected the claim
application.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that
the accident was caused by respondent no.1 hitting the appellant
with his motorcycle, therefore, considering the negligence on the
part of respondent No.1, the award should be passed. Hence,
prayed for allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable
compensation.
6. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the evidence, it seems that a report of the said
accident was lodged before Akaltara Police Station based on which
charge-sheet (Ex.A-1) under Sections 323, 325, 294, 506-B along
with Section 279 of IPC and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of
3
Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against Respondent No.1. It is
noteworthy that the charge-sheet has not been filed under Section
337 & 338 of the IPC.
9. The appellant/claimant has not given any information regarding how
the accident occurred and how did Respondent No.1 cause her
injury. Similarly, the appellant has claimed that her witness,
Ramkishor Agrawal (AW-2), was present at the scene of the
accident. However, this witness, Ramkishor Agrawal (AW-2), has
also not provided any substantive evidence regarding the accident.
The appellant herself, and her witness Ramkishore Agrawal (AW-
2), have stated that based on the report lodged by the appellant
and the statements given, the Akaltara Police Station registered an
offence against Respondent No. 1 under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code and filed a charge sheet. However, no offence under
Sections 337 or 338 IPC which relate to physical injury caused by
the accident was either registered or charge-sheeted. It is notable
that the appellant has not submitted a certified copy of her own
statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC before the
Akaltara Police in the related criminal proceedings. Therefore,
according to the evidence of the report filed by the appellant
(Exhibit A-2), it is apparent that the appellant informed the Akaltara
Police that on the date of the accident, Respondent No. 1, while
driving a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit her,
causing her to fall. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 allegedly picked
up a stone and struck her on her right hand, causing a fracture
injury. Based on this version, the Akaltara Police did not register an
offence under Sections 337 or 338 IPC but instead registered and
filed a final charge sheet under Sections 323 and 325 IPC.
10. Based on the above, the Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence
held that due to the exaggerated and contradictory statements
made by the claimant/appellant in her police statement and during
the proceedings, as well as the undisputed fact of prior enmity
between the parties, it cannot be established beyond doubt that the
4
fracture to the appellant’s right hand was caused due to the
accident allegedly committed by Respondent No.1 on the date of
the incident. In the case of Ambalika Singh & Others vs. United
India Insurance Corporation Limited & Others, 2018 (1) T.A.C.
2017 (All.) it is also held that in a compensation claim case, it is
essential to establish that the injuries were caused as a result of an
accident involving a motor vehicle. It has not been established that
the appellant’s injury was caused by a collision with a motorcycle,
instead, the charge-sheet reveals that the injury was caused due to
the assault by Respondent No.1.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any irregularity or
error in the impugned order of dismissal of the claim application
calling for interference. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back
forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham