^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo.^S"] /2010 Appellant > Non-Applicant ^'\^ 4^.1-1^ ...vf-iSir' .A'^T'.V-\V ^'.^ wv.v: o;w ^ v ^- Smt. Sabita Mishra, Aged about 37 years, W/d Shri Arvind Mishra, R/o Daspalla, Distt. Nayagarh (Orissa), at present R/o Village - Thuthi, Tahsil - Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa - (C.G.) Versus Respondent 01aimant ^' Makhanlal Chauhan, Aged about 48 years, S/o Ramdhan Chouhan, R/o Lavsara, Tahsil - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.G.) MEMORANDUM OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ^y3sc3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. (C)No. 651/2010 Smt. Sabita Mishra Versus Makhanlal Chauhan » SB:- HQN»BLESHRIJff.K. AGARWAL, J PRBSENT:- Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate, for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (16-3-2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is driver-cum-owner?s appeal against the award dated 22-2-2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Claim Case No. 43/2009 whereby an amount of Rs. 16,497/- is awarded to the claimant/respondent for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 17-4-2008. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 17-4-2008 at about 12.15 p.m. the claimant was going from village Lakhurri to Thuthi via Lavsara. In public road at village Thuthi, the non-applicant dashed the claimant by driving her Moped Luna bearing registration No. CG10/ZE 3413 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the claimanf sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 19,40,363/- as compensation for the injuries sustained. 4. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence led, submissions made and material placed, held appellant guilty of negligence and awarded Rs. 16,497/- as compensation to the claimant. 5. Shri Kela, learned counsel for the appellant would submit, learned Tribunal has erred in holding appellant negligent ^^',/ ^^s^" in driving the offending vehicle merely on the basis of document Ex. A-1 whereas the same is not relevant for the purpose of proving negligence. It was further contended that though learned Tribunal has held claimant failed to prove permanent disability, even then Rs. 16,497/- has been awarded which is shockingly on higher side and deserves to be suitably reduced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 7. The appellant has admitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Link Court, Jaijaipur that the offending vehicle was driven by her rashly and negligently and based on above admission, she was convicted and a fine of Rs. 500/- was^ imposed upon her. The above statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class is an admission in terms of Section 18 of the Evidence Act and is relevant as against driver of the vehicle under Section 21 of the said Act as held by this Court in the case of Dhanjay Prasad Suryavanshi -v' Rajendra Sharma and others (2005(2) CGLJ 174). 8. In view of above I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was driven by the appellant rashly and ne^ligently. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, only Rs. 16,497/- has been awarded by the Tribunal which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side looking to the facts and circumstances ofthe case. 9. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the appeal. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge