."-^: ;^^ IN1~HEH(3N^LEHIGHCOURH"O^C AtBll..ASPUR MIS(:.APPEALrcyN6.(2-^^ APPELI-ANTFS/ ^I-^IMANTS BiFORETHE miBLUM^l- •";./ 1. Teejram S/b. Dhobi, aged about 2. Ganeshi Ba i W Dttobi/age about ^ iMv^i: ^^^' ^?^^t^^ oth ^°" .^''^A/?t^'^ /n ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Q^^^ ^s-^ ^y;-^ StatiQti Bilaigarh District ^ ^•••" VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS S-. 1. Ghasiram S/o, phamru Dhob^ aged about : 50! years, (r0.B.y Saheb^ Ram : 47years, 'o. feej Rarft : 41 years, Bangpali, Poliice Sarsiva, Tahsil Raipur(C.G.) ^2^ Awadh Ram jS/o/ Cham^ Dhobi aged about: 40 years, t '^ Both R/Q. Bcingpal I, Police Station : 1 Sarsiva, Ja^^\ ^ Bilaigarh DJstrJciRaipur (C.G.); < 3. Natjona 1 Insu ra hce Cbmpany Ltd. Mbbin M^hial, Ihfront of Rajbandha Matdan, G.E^ Rx)ad, ^ RaJpur/DJstt. Raip APP^LUNDERSEGT'I©Nll730FMOTORi\/EHia 1988 •l:l:l:.;:l.'^.v-;' 't^S:^ 'r^N^ ^iS^- '•'^y^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 264 of2008 Appellants Teejram 8& anofher Versus Respondents Ghasirain & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Honl3le Shri Satish K. Agnihotn & HouL'ble ShriJustice N, K, Agarwal, JJ ShdN. K. Chatterjee, Advocate forfhe appellaats. Shri Aman. Kesarwani, Advocate for fhe nespondente No. 1 & 2, None for fherespondent No,3. O R DE R f0ra» ( Passed on this 6th day of November, 2009 ) Heard, This appeal adses from the awand dated 28.12.2007, passed by the First Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar in Claim Case No. 202/2006. The case of the appellants before fhe Tribxuxal was fhat ox? 6,3,2006 at 7.30 p.m, Hemlal was driving the Tractor bearmg No. C.G. 04-ZQ/1950, at that time the tractor-tioMey met with an accident, as a i^esult ofwhich Hemlal died. The findiag recorded by fhe Tribunal, after exainming all tihie aspects of fhe matter, are that the deceased Heiiilal son of claiuiaGits/appellaats was not fhe driver/owner of the tractor bearing rcgistration No. CG-04/ZQ-1950. The dcceased Hemlal forcefdUy snatched the driviag fromi the regular driver of fhe said vehicle aad met with aa accident which resulted iato tds deatlx. Learaed counsel appearing for the appellants submits fhat fhe evidence has been accorded ex-parte wifhout exammiag Meetocani, who is fhe regular driver of the fanactor ia di^pute, before r^^ estabUshmg the fact ftiat the deceased had forcefulfy taken the driviag seat fix>m Meetoram. 5. On query, asto whefher any attempt was made on fhe part of the claimaats by filing an. application or by oral request to get said Meetram exacamed, reply of the counsel appearing for appellaiits is negative. 6. We have heard learaed counsel appearing for fhe psrties, perused fhe dociimeiits aad considered fhe case. 7. We have fozind fhat the fiadiag recorded by the Tribuiial is just aad proper, The owner of fhe vehicle had not perxaitted Hemlal to drive the tractor. The Tribunal has exaiained four witoesses who were duly cross-exammed by the claimaafs advocate. There is no irrcgularity, inegality or arbitrarmess m fhe order impugned aad as such no interference is warraated. 8, Accordiagly, fhe appeal is disnussed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Thakur