ys^ T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR. J. Misc. Apoeal (Cl No. 1188/2009 APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS : Lalit Kumar Sahu (Advocate) District Excise Officer and another. ORDER Post for pronouncement on ^ August, 2010 |""n"l 1 NB.. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge .^^^ /r^'\ ff &.......,.. 1 1 "Bk ^.^^' ( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1188 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Lalit Kumar Sahu (Advocate), aged about 45 years, R/o Near Ram Janki Mandir, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. District Excise Officer, State Government of C.G. Excise Department, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, District Collector, Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Balwinder Singh S/o Dharshan Singh, Aged about 35 years, Excise Department, Dhamtari (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Shiv Kumar Dadsena, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sunil Sharma, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passedon <f .08.2010) By this appeal, the appellant / claimant has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated 13.05.2009 passed in claim case No. 54/2008 by which 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the TribunaF') has dismissed the claim of the appellant. Hence, the appellant is before this Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.12.2006 the appellant was going to Raipur to Dhamtari in his Indica Car bearing registration No.C.G.04 B/8505 (henceforth 'the Indica Car). On way at village Darba, respondent No.2 driving the Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.02/0078 (henceforth 'the Jeep') I ^1%^&. 1 i ^iks^^i i ^ ^ V',T; .^/ ll^ .^.^^•; ^ .2 l^L owned by respondent No.l rashly and negligently hit the Indica Car and caused damages to the said Car. 3. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.70,000/- was filed wherein it was pleaded that the Indica Car was got damaged completely by respondent No.2 due to his rash and negligent driving. The parts of the Indica Car i.e. head lights, bonnet, chassis, condenser, radiator, engine, steering, doors of the car etc. were also got damaged due to accident. 4. After affording opportunity and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the negligent driving of the driver of offending Jeep. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence properly led before it and thus erred in not awarding single penny towards damages caused to the Indica Car by respondent No.2. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award. 7. In the present case, the appellant examined himself as A.W. 1 and one more witness namely Hirendra Kumar Sahu as A.W.2. Appellant has deposed in his examination-in-chief that respondent No.2 - Balwinder Singh was driving the Jeep rashly and negligently and in order to overtake the Indica Car he stopped the Jeep in front of Indica Car all of sudden and caused damage to front portion of the Indica Car which would show that the Indica Car hit the rear portion of the Jeep if the Jeep was not stopped in front of Indica Car. He further deposed in his cross-examination he was not present at the time of incident which shows that he is hearsay witness. Hirendra Kumar Sahu A.W.2 deposed in his evidence that while trying to overtake the Indica Car, the driver of the Jeep hit the Indica Car and the said Car was being driven by Daulal Yadav. On perusal of the above evidence of the appellant A.W.l, it reveals that the incident took place due to head and collision of R ,.^"^ ""%. ,^!" ^"•••^.; '\\ V^:^!^:: y^ (• two vehicles. If the evidence of Hirendra Kumar Sahu A.W.2 that while overtaking the Indica Car, the Jeep driver hit the said Car is taken into consideration, then it was not possible because if the Jeep hit the Indica Car while overtaking, the door side part of the Indica Car must have been damaged whereas according to pleadings and the evidence of the appellant A.W. 1 the front portion of the Indica Car got damaged. This witness has not deposed in his evidence that who is responsible for the accident, whether the driver of the Jeep was negligent or the driver of the Indica Car was negligent. A bare perusal of the above evidence, therefore, makes it clear that the appellant/claimant has not been able to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the Jeep. The evidence led before the Tribunal by the appellant and his witness is contradictory to each other about the accident. The learned Tribunal has after rightly dealt with the evidence adduced before it and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 9 ^r6r. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are purely on the basis of legal, clinching and reliable evidence and as such I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 1 C. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be 1^\ and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge