HIGH COURT OF CHHARTT8SGARH AT BILASPUR Slngie Bench:- Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J Appellants IVS.A.fONo. 423 of 2006 1. Makhan Lal, son of Shri Dukhu Ram Sahu, aged about 28 years, resident of Birjutoia, P.S. Mohla, ' Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Driver of the Jeep No. CG- 07/ZD-8735 2. Girish Kumar Sahu, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Dukhu Ram Sahu, resident of viiEage Birju Tola, P.S. Mohla, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Owner of the Jeep No. CG- 07/ZD8735 Respondent Versys Kishore Kumar Maynt, son of Shri L.M. Mainti, aged about 27 years, resjdent of Rajahara, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (APPEAL SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT). Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav, counsei for the appeilants. None forthe respondent. Ora! Order (Passedon 27th Apri!, 2011) 1. This is Driver's and Owner's appeal agalnst the award dated 05.04.2006 passed in Ciaim Case No. 1/2004 by Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna! (for short 'the Tribunal'), Baiod District Durg (C.G.) whereby and whereunder the iearned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,11,133/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiilng of the claim petition ti!l the date of actual payment, In favour ofthe daimant/respondent and against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Brlef facts, in a nutshdl, are that on 16.06.2003 at about 11.30 a.m. when daimant Kishor Kumar was going to Kusum Kasa from Rajhara on hls Hero Honda motor cycie bearing No. C.G.- 01/ZE 1527, ail of a sudden Makhan Lal driver of Jeep bearing No. C.G.-07/ZD-8735 coming from wrong side rashiy and negjigently dashed the claimant as a result of which claimant sustained serious injuries on his right leg below knee and got fractured. 3. The clairnant being injured filed a daim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 4,82,827/-. !t was pieaded therein that at the time of accident, the claimant Kishor Kumar was aged about 27 years. He was working as eiectrician in a shop situated at Dalii Rajhara and was earnlng Rs. 3,000/~ per month. 4. Per contra, appellants herein denled the pleadings of the ctaim petition by filing their written statements respectlveiy. 5. AI1 the parties led their evidence before the Tribunal. 6. Learned Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and materiai pjaced by the parties held that the driver of the said jeep was negligent in drlvlng the sajd offending jeep and daimant sustained injuries due to negiigent driving of the driver Makhan Lai. ^€s:lv^^ I'fc-^iPl S u 'N^^^'?'"- '"^ I •%^y ._"sy [^s^^^ f^ 7. Shrl Ashok Das Vaishnav, Eearned Advocate for the appeliants assaiied the Impugned award only on the ground that the medica! bilis have not been proved by the persons who prepared the same. The respondent had not led primary evidence for proof of these documents. 8. i have heard the iearned counse! for the appeilants, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. So far as the ground raised by iearned counsel for the appellants is concerned, the respondent had not led any primary evidence forproofof these documents whereas the medical bills Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/67 ciearly show that signatures of the shop owners have been properly placed in al! medicai receipts issued by concerned medical shops. It is not necessary to record the statement of the owner of the medicai shops as the documents are properiy signed and issued by them and further al! the documents have been proved and exhibited during the trial of the claim case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, l am of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribuna! is just and reasonable award and calfs for no interference. 11. Consequentiy, the appeal being devold of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Vijay