_I_N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CfE-IATTISGARHxBILASPUR M.A. No. 9w; /2004. U u: ‘ ’ § gESPONDENTs : 1. Vednath Rajwade s/o Komal Prasad, aged about 27 years, R/o village Banari, Police Station & Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G-I ‘ ( mIVER )’ \ § 2. Ramlal R‘ajwada S/o Kunjram, aged g, about 60 years, R/o village Banari Police station & Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir—Q‘hampa (C.G. ) . (OWNER) ‘ Q/3 .i The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ‘2' ‘f Dayalband , Bi lasPur , Di stt . Bi laspur £ (INSURER) J / APPEAL UNDER SECTxoN 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT APPELLANT Deen Dayal s/o Mansa Ram Suryavanshi, i I§LAIMANT I, aged about 3O years, R/o village i Banari, Police Station & Tahsil f 1 Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-€:hampa (C.G.) v e r s u s /¢ )4, GK" ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH : 31m 13.3.: Hc‘m’ble aim I. u. Qnddmi a: H‘on’ble Sin! Manindra Mom Shim JJ. MAN0326 of 2004 Appelhni- Decn Dayal claimant Versus RuponQe‘nts Vednath Rajwade and Others [Anal nude: secupn 17'3 of tha motor Vehicle Act, 1983] :kesentt- Shn’ Pushyendm Kumar Patel, counsel for the l appellant. Shn' Ghmhyam Patel, counsel for respondent No.3- Insurancc Qompany. ORDER [DRAM (Fused on this 21" thy of Octoba, 2010) Per Manlndn Mom Shim J. 1. This appeal is dimcted against the impugned awamd dated 28-07- 2004 passed by the 2"d Addi11'nnal Motor Acc&ent Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (hueinaftcrmhiedmas‘thsmunammMotorAocidcntClaimCase No. 11/2004 whcmby tbs applimfion M by the appellant under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 19881193 been rejected. 2. Brief facts necessaly for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant tiled an applicah‘on under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act befoxe the Tribunal for giant of compensation stating that on 2104-2002 when respondent No; 1 was driving ’I‘lactor bearingRegistmtion No.M.P.26- E-86 14 and Trolley bearing Registration No.M.P.26-E-8625 in a rash and negligent manner. the same resulted in accident, in Whbh, left thumb of the appellant was amputed msuln'ng in 30% permanent disablement. \ 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the applicab‘on for gmnt of mhpmsamn has been illegally rejected, even though; it has been pmVed &Dm the evidence on recoxd that the appenant Maxed aécidmt and amputation of hie left thumb on mount of negligent driving of 'l‘mctor and Tmw by the respondent No 1 and the appellant has also proved that he sun‘exert acc1dent by pmducmg copy of F I R Mulahlza Report (Medlcal Report) and has also pmved that he sowed disahlhty by plaemg documentmy ‘e ewdence m the form of dlsahlhty cerlnicate Ex.A-7 . 4.‘ On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that‘them is Ifo illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application, as the appliration is hivolous inasmuch as in the Mulahiza Report Ex.A-3, which has been nled by the appellant, the Doctor has s1ated that the injuiy is received within three to six hours and he was examined on 16—05-2002 whereas according to the appellant himself, the accident took place on 21-04—2002. He also submitted that though the accident is alleged to have happened on 21-04-2002, ELR. has been lodged in the Police Stah'on after‘long delay on 16-05-2002 and the number of the vehir‘le was also not mentioned. He further submitted that § the insurance company has rightly been held to not liable as policy has been issued 1n respect of the Tractor hearing Regstrahon No M P 26/ E- 8624 and no policy has been issued covering insurance m respect of Tractor bearing Registration No.M.P.26—E/8614.r 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ‘v-\ 6. From the Mulahiza Report (Medical Report) Ex.A-3 tiled by the appellant himself before the Court below, it is revealed that the doctor has ‘ stamd feganling thumb injury by moolding that the injury is found to be sustain¢d Within three to six hours. Th6 said report is datcd 1&05—2002. Tht casé of the appellant in the claim applicat'on and 11s' deposit'inn is that the accident took place on 21-04-2002. Themfom, the appellant has failed to pmvcj that the injury was caused to him due to aocident which took place 01f: 21~o4—2002. Them is no illegality in the ending mcorded by me leamedimbunai in this mgam. 7. A *péms'al of the msabmty cenihcate Ex.A-7 and Concession Ce1 lifteate Ex.A-8 shows that the appellant is stated to be suh‘en‘ng hem 30% disahllity but did not mention that the appellant sun'exed hum permanent disability. Thus, the iinding moorded by the learned Tribunal that the appellant has failed to pmve that he suEered any injury on ~-account of alleged accident on 21-04 2002 and thereby suh‘emi permanent disability, does not sun'er non) any illegality. ’ s. 1n the mun, the appeal is hahle to be dismissed and is accomingly dismissed No onlers as to cost Sd— t , 5w- i ha“ Shrivastava r‘ 'I.M.Quddusi Manindra MO H Judge Judge “h ;:[' \\ riiui <