^ •r\ jljSSSsfiS! iigiidi TKT TTJTT1 UT/^tJ /^/^T TT3rP /^T7l TT TT^T^^ ATIT TT3TTt <^TTl /"^T.TTT ATVTtTO/^ A r^rT ii^ i rijif nivjm "^/v^u rci v^r tjui^i^/Ai Uivti/ox< v/nnAi ii^VjtAKn AT BILASPUR '0"3 M.A^No........J.r^..../2007 D.1 Appeilant \^i.SajuLiQjLiX. Rameshwar Prasad Venna S/o Derha Ram Verma Aged about 51 Years, R/o Bajrang Nagar Raipur, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Raipur Tehsil 86 Distt- Raipur (C.G.) /"^' ^ Y/~. Respondents iNon Appiicdnts VERSUS :1. Ashok Kumar Venna S/o Pila Singh Verma Aged about 40 years. iroshottam Sineh Verma S/o Tejram Verma Aged about 58 years Both R/o VUlage - Dodekala, P.S. Dharsiva, Tahsil Ss Distt- Raipur (C.O.) 3. Kumari Vinita Chandravanshi f D/o Dr.R.K. Chandravanshi R/o Village- Kumd, Tahsil 6s Diatrict- Raipur (C.G.) 4.i /United India Insurance Co. Lirmted, G.E. Road, Tar Complex, Bhiiai, Branch Office-G.E.Road, ihilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra.J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.tClNo. 103 of 2007 Rameshwar Prasad Verma. Versus Ashok Kumar Verma and others. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, counset forthe appellant. Shri Sanjeev Verma, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (23/03/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 31/08/2006 passed by the XI Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in Claim Case No. 28/2004 dismissing flie claim petttion of the appellant who was injured in motor accident in quesUon. (2) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petition, ars that on TO/06/1998 at about 10:00 p.m. in the night, appellant along with non-applicant No.1 were going to village Jara to attend the mamage in a relative's house on Scooter bearing registration No. M.P.23-K-5032. The Scooter was driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 and when <hey reached near bridge on the Semariya Khar Public Road, he lost control over the Scooter and the light came with force in to the eyes of non-applicant No.1 from unknown jeep which was coming from front side, due to which he could not see the road and jeep dashed the Scooter and ran away, as a result ofwhich the appellant fell down from the Scooter. He sustained fracfcire on his right leg and also received grievous injuries. At the time of accident appellant was 50 years of age and used to earr — ^ ^. Rs.100/- per day byworking as a mixture operator under K.K. [^wangan. The claimant has claimed compensation ofRs.8,60,000/-. (3) The F.I.R. was lodged by the ctaimant himself in which it has been alleged that it was the fault on the part ofthejeep driver, who collided the jeep with the Scooter. (4) Whatever injuries have been caused due to the collision with the jeep. The jeep was unknown. Further no permanent disability has been proved, though a private doctor AW-2 namely Dr. Shanter Dubey appeared in fte witness box, but he had stated that he had not taken any fees from the claimant. No permanent disability has been stated by this witness, therefore, we do not see any good ground to Interfere in the impugned award. However, since it is the case of hit and run 'rt will be open for the claimanVappellant to make claim under the hit and run case as provided under Section 163 of the lytotor Vehicles Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 'SA'- 1-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge