^^aaw^. »i' ^Ss HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, JJ. APPELLANT APPLICANT (Sr.Citizen) RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS M.A. No. 23 of 2004 N.K.Gopinathan Nalr, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri P.N.Nair, r/o Saumya, 167 Malviyanagar, Durg (CG) VERSUS 1. Amanendra Pandey, S/o Rajendra Pandey, aged about31years, R/o Street No.2, Pragati Nagar, Rishali, Bhilai, Tahsil & District DURG (CG) 2. Vaidhya Nath Pandey, S/o Sahadeo Pandey, aged about 57 years, R/0 Street No.2, Pragati Nagar, Rishali, Bhilai, Tahsil & District DURG (CG) MIS.APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Shri Amiya Kant Tiwari, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 27.07.2010) The following oral order of the Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated 29.09.003 passed by the7 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (forshort 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 10/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the fact that respondent No.1 was driving the N / vehicle at the time of alleged accident. -*<^ 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal as per pleadings of the parties are that on 25.02.2001 at about 8.30 p.m. while wife of the appellant Smt.AmniNair was crossing the road.at that time respondent No.1, who was driving the vehicle bearing'registration No. M.P. 24 R.A /3062 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her, as a result of such ir 'r1- \ li"^-' • '•^" ^ : ^f3' o accident she fell down and received grievous injury. Finally, she has died and F.1.R. was lodged. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. The respondents haye denied the allegations relating to such accident. •» 4. After affording an opportunity and hearing of the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the daim petition filed on behalf of the appellant. 5. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. Order impugned and record of the Tribunal perused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation in favour of the sufferers/victims of the motor accident. No strict proof like in civil case is required to prove the issues in the claim case. The Tribunals are required to take liberal view to prove adequate compensation to sufferers of the motor accident against the earning persons. In deciding the rights and liability, the Tribunals are also required to consider all circumstances including filing, pendency and disposal of the criminal case against the person who has denied the claim of sufferer/victim or liability to pay compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued in support of the impugned order. 8. In the present case, as per Ex.P.4 i.e. F.1.R., driver of the vehicle was unknown and the vehicle was also unknown. Thereafter, on the basis of F.I.R., matter was investigated and charge sheet has been filed against respondent No.1.~ The appellant has examined himself as witness and has cleariy deposed that at the time of accident he was not present on the spot. Respondent No.1 ha? also examined himself as witness and has specifically deposed that while he was going towards Sector - 7, he saw that some woman was lying on the road after accident and some persons gathered there, whereupon he requested one mini bus driver to take her to hospital and after sometime his vehicle was seized. In his detailed cross- examination, he has admitted that a criminal case has been lodged ^ 11 :!]i''n "'fc. -'"a».> @--fe \<b against him. Another witness Baijnath i.e. respondent No.2 has also substantially corroborated the evidence of respondent No.1. 9. In the present case, both the respondents have denied the victim diedin a motor accident caused by respondent No.1. The appellant was not present on the spot at the time of accident, He has not examined any witness to unfold the story.. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Ex.P.3 i.e. final report of criminal case and also Ex.P.5 i.e. Supurdnama of the motor cycle. Vide Ex.P.4 the police have seized the vehicle from respondent No.2 and vide Ex.P.3 the police arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.1 has caused such accident. Ex.P.3 is the finding or opinion of the person whom the appellant has not examined. Ex.P.3 can be considered only for the purpose that prosecution has been launched against respondent No.1 whereas the document Ex.P.3 is not sufficient for drawing an inference that respondent No.1 has dashed the deceased by rash and negligent driving ofthe vehicle. 10. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 11. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in such finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the absence of any evidence against respondents for making them liable for payment of compensation. 12. Consequently, the appeal being devoid 6f merit is liable to be and is herebydismissed. No order as to costs. j „., ^- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge