^-^^: ,/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} MISCELLANEOUS APPEALJ'Cy N0. ^2-4oF 2009 '.<j5 4^4 APPELLANTS (l^on-applicants) 1, M^ ^>- ^•^^ ^f."' ^^"" ^ Tarun Kumar S/o. Sukendu aged about 48 years, R/o. Rest House Road, Gourela (Pendra Road), District Bilaspur (C.G.) '5 (Owner) Chhotu @ Dhani Ram S/o. Kashi Ram Panika, aged about 22 years, R/o. Village Sarbahera, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) ^' RESPONDENTS: 1. < ^.v VERSUS Surati Bai Wife pf Dhundha Yadav, aged about 36 years, Pancham Yadav S/o. Dhundha Yadav, aged about 21 years, 3^ Mani Yadav S/o. Dhundha Yadav, aged about 20 years, ^ ^' Jayanati Bai D/o. Dhundha Yadav, aged about 16 years, T^ruM^ ;fW^-e-9 ^u^J^I* fe^A All are R/o. Village Karangara, I^ Bijouri, P.S. Gourela, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimants) ^ Bajaj Aliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Marg, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) MISCELLANESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 /.: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (0 No. 894 of 2009 Appellants Tarun Kumar & another Versus Respondents Jain Singh 8s others And M. A.faNo. 924 of 2009 Appellants Tarun Kumar & another Versus ^ Respondents Surati Bai & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 E>B: Hon'bleShri I. M. Quddusi SB Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri S. S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 1 1th day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. 1. The instant two appeals, filed by the appellants (owner and driver of the vehicle) arise from the comnion award dated 8th May, 2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra . Road in Claim Cases No. 12/2008 ( Jain Singh & others Vs. Tarun Kumar & others) and 24/2008 (Surti Bai & others Vs. Chotu alias Dhaniram 85 others ), awarding a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- and i Rs. 2,48,000/-, respectively, fixing liability to make payment of compensation upon the owner 85 driver of the vehicle, jointly and severally. ws-^: ss<\: ws'^ ^ 2< The claimants have also filed cross objections for enhancement of the ainount of coinpensation. 3. We have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 4. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that both the claim cases arise out of one and the same accident occurred on 15.1.2008 by the Pickup, bearing registration No. M.P. 18 GA-0710. According to the claimants in both the claiin cases deceased Panku Suigh and Dhundha Yadav were hit by the pffending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (Chotu) and this statement was supported by the claimants' witness Bhaiyalal. However, this witness Bhaiyalal had lodged the F.I.R. in the police station to the effect that on the date of accident i.e. 15.1.2008 both the deceased were sitting in the vehicle as passengers. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant submits that leamed Claiins Tribunal has wrongly relied on the version of the informant (Bhaiyalal) of the F.I.R. that both the deceased were sitting in the vehicle as passengers. The claimants as well as witness Bhaiyalal have categorically stated that wheri the deceased were going to worship af Banjari Temple at that time near Karangaghat the offending vehicle hit both the deceased. Thus, the claim of the claimants in both the claim petitions comes under the category of third party. 6. On going through the papers and the evidence on record we are of the opinibn that there is no error in the findings recorded by leamed Claims Tribunal. It is apparent that the claimants have tried to say that the deceased were third party by giving a different story contrary to the version recorded in the F.I.R. and the owner and driver M '^ 't:. 8. supported the same. But tbe owner of the vehicle liimself had given a statement on 15.1.2008 before the police, signed by him, that the deceased were sitting in the offending vehicle. Thus, the introduction of the changed story by the claimants to get compensadon cannot make the insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation. In view of the above discyssion it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the leamed Claiins Tribunal. Both the appeal fail andaredismigsed.No order as to costs. Since none appeared on behalf of the claimants to press the cross- objections, both the cross objections are dismissed. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur