E LART ' MAN? P § W334 .IQHR i Wm ii? IHE H§G§‘i EQIJRT €3F liiDiiiQ‘iiRE §§T giLASPiJRifLiEQ ; ,MESCELLAMEQUS; gPPEk m4% 26 Baggak huma: méhk Sm $6 x‘: Naihk med atmi £§2 wars! Rio Veérsawarkar may, Hwap‘uf, P D Amanaka Ta‘1 8: Dsm RamMC G }, }~3 '\ Rargat Ema?! 4:3 Sarjea Sinah Meir: abmaf “a vedifa, RR: i'é§ahar35hn'a Reaaways, 1n émnt of Gugmt: Schmi T’m & Diatt‘ Rawut 4C G } The "adtmnai inbm'anca Ccmmny um‘mn. 1G Vaidhman wagar Breach — gbandasa Read Nagrmr, Thtmzgh mmgcana£ Fianagen Dmsmna§ Ofke— Mabm {vianai G E Read Ramura; G } allgcei§anwus § ca: wide; Eatwn? i‘mtar Vahide Act 1988 @{v k ¥ERSHS A é the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant has been dismissed. The brief facts of the that, on 02.12.2002, the registration No. CG-O4—ZC—i damaged in the said accident, The appellant preferre ’ under Section 166 of tr compensation to the tune of t to their shop in the said accid The Tribunal, on a oios parties, the material availabli the parties. held that the off« Sal Book & Stationery Shop Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal') in claim case No. 1.19/03, whereby and whereunder 01.09.2004, passed by IVth :ase according to the appeliant are offending vehicle Truck bearing 1980 dashed his shop which was i an application before the Tribunal e Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ts. 2.00,135/- on account of damage ent. e scrutiny of the evidence led by the a on the record, and submissions of ‘anding vehicle damaged one wall of whereas the appellant’s shop wae Auto parts shop, thus appellant failed to prove any damages to his shop, and dismissed the ciair 1 petition. merw (W) metimtéqiai aarméamiai mmwma mmiwm wwma S B Hon’b!e Shri Justice N K Aaarwal 17.2.2010 Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advccate for respondent No. 2. Heard on admission. The instant appeal arises out of i‘ne award dated Sahu Shri Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not controvert the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. A bare perusal of statements of Deepak Kumar (AW-1) and Mohan Rao (AW-2) would show that the aopellant was runnlng Auto Parts Shop not Statlonery Shop. Further, he felted to prove damages sustained by him ard aiso failed to prove his ownership over the shop which was dam aged in the said accident. :ln View of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the claim petition warranting interference of this court. The appeal being devoid of substance is liabie to be and is .hereby dismissed at admissim stage. N.K. Agawal Judge Sdl- W mm-$ .................................... W 20 spasm (WE) mat-«measles mmdwmn mwmet r