IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Cl No. Lb / 2009 APPELLANT: (^ 'CLAIMANT <at.^'-—- «K W y^t^ "_^f^ R.??A.-—"^S RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS /Angels Nurseiy, *.>I8iyi8 ® Through: Mohit Agrawal, A-2 Bajaj Colony, Ring Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.. ^- s Manjit Khan, S/o Ibrahim Khan, R/o Idgah Bhata, Raipur (C.G.) Taxi Owners Transport, Through: Shri Vikas Jaggi, R/o H.I.G.C./24 Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited. Divisional Office No. 1, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 173 of MOTOR VEHICLESACT 3..^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. M.A.(C»No.60of2009 APPELLANT Angels Nursery. Versus RESPONDENTS Manjit Khan and others. Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsei for appellant. ORAL ORDER (17/06/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Heard on admission. (2) Claimant's claim petition seeking damages of Rs.1,26,475/- has been dismissed bythe learned Claims Tribunal. (3) It was the case of the appellant that vehicte belonging to Angels Nursery bearing registration No. C.G.04 D 1449 was dashed by anotfter vehicle driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which his vehicle suffered extensive damages and he incurred expenditure of Rs.1,26.475/- in repairing. (4) Before the Claims Tribunal the appellant submitted Ex.P/13 issued by one Setap Services to prove that the amount was paid and the expenditure was incurred in getting the vehicle repaired. The Tribunal has disbelieved the said document. (5) Before ttie Claims Tribunal the claimant has examined himself as AW-1. tn para 12 of his statement he has stated that the estimate of expenditure was issued by Ralas Motors, whereas Ex.P/13 has been issued 'by Setap Services and not by Ralas Motors. Similariy claimant has further ^' '^- stated that he purchased accessories worth Rs.83,844/-, however, no receipt or bill ofAreon Motors has been submitted in proofofthe said statement. (6) tn view of the above, leamed Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting appellant's claim. (7) The appeal is devoid of any substance which fails and is hereby dismissed. — Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^