BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. M.A. No. WM /2002 (sg§;)¥/#f APPELLANT : Bisahuram Gond @ Bisahuram NON APPLICANT ihakur, s/o Kunwar Singh yv’Thakur, r/o Azad Chowk, 7,, Bhilai—3 P.O. Bhilai—3, Dist Durg, C.G V ERSUS. l. Dwarika Prasad Kewat, s/o Late Mehettar Kewat, aged about lib years, r/o village Sirsakala, in front of Public Pond, 9.0. Bhilai-'-3 Dist. Durg, C.G. MAPPLICAMW RESPONDWT Kapur Lal Sahu,aged about 29 years, s/o Bisilal, r/o A zad Chowk, Bhilai—3, P.O Bhilai_3, Dist.Durg, C.G. Nona (m APPLICANT) 1 / APPEAL UNDm SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. 1 p. . z since the vehicle of the appellant was not involved in any accident, the appellant is bad and liable to be the order fastening liability on set aside. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the statements of witness Sukhi‘am and Tijan, who have‘been 9 17/ 2002 which has been registered examined in Criminal Case No. against the driver for an oh’encie punishable under Secu'on 304—A of the IPC. A bare perusal of the said statements makes it clear that the said Witness has resiled from hisearlier statement which was recorded by the police during investigation. In substance, what learned counsel for the appellant wants to submit at this stage is involved in any accident the owner that since the vehicle was not Mew XI-HC-22 m W, mg, W m an mam?W if wW m manW é: am m £51m? vfé‘'a 0'7 I 04I 2003 Shn' BR‘ Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Hsanl on’the question of admission and stay. This appeal has been $ed by the owner of the. vehicle against the awald dated 23/09] 2002! under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, passed by lllrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in C Case No.62] 2002‘ The contention of the 1e ed counsel for the appellant is that XI-HC-22 Wm an W AW W‘IW vfé‘d should be cxonerated. 0b ously, such a hding cannot be ' recorded at this stage as it will rejudge the claim case in which it is not disputed that there is a sp cihc issue as to whether the death of the claimant was on account f rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in qtiesu' That apaxt, the contention cannot be accepted onxthe basis of a s tement made in a pending criminal siled Rom his earlier statement for even if ultimately the driver is cquitted of rashness and negligence, it will not an‘ect the proceed' gs under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act where an awaxd is passed on the basis of no-fault liability. That apart, what WO ‘d be the ultimate conclusion anived at by the criminal Court, cannot be determined at this stage. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No. 1725/ 2002 for stay and l.A.No.81 10/ 2002 for urgent healing also stand disposed of. Sd/- RCONaik ' V I t case bv a Witness who has Judge (“VIE WW W VV-_ V ,V v”, Wade?! ‘ o .