•^ ^ w ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. ADDeal fCyNo //SQ^^^^^^^^^ ^ Appellant •R.I.^ ^x. k\^'. ..^^^Distt- •*wy?.«8---' Versus Firtin aged about 145 years, W/ o Pukram, R/o Village Bargaon,Tah Jnajgir Champa (C. G.) Respondents 1. Driver Owner 2. Ramsnehi Yadav@vRakhi Ram Yadav aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Kartik Ram, Village Portha Thana 85 Tahsil Shakti District Janjgir Champa (G.G.) Ramesh Kumar, S/o Dayaram Patel, R/o Vidyanagar Colony Aabidabad (Andhra Pra^desh) •^ Ma.NtfncJl The esQ±ia^lInsurance^^^^^^ through Registred Office, OSMidiletun Street Post; Box. 9229 Kolkata. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLESACT 1988 Insurer 3. it'mF ^ir' ^^m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant IVIiscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1130 of 2009 Firtin versus Respondents Ramsnehi Yadav @ Rakhi Ram Yadav and others Present: Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the appellant. Shri B.N.Nande, counsel for respondent No.3. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th January, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the claimant whose application under Section 166 ofthe Act has been dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the claimant along with 25-27 other persons had gone for Madwarani Darshan on tractor No.CG 11/2724 on 13-10-2005. During return journey at about 6:30 PM, truck No.MH 26 B 4896, being driven by the driver in rash and negligenrt manner, dashed the tractor and trolley near Siwani turning petrol-pump, as a result of which, 7 persons sitting on the tractor died on the spot and 4 other injured persons died in the hospital ^ J'".A^^ /i^ 1 during treatment. The matter was reported to the Champa Police Station. According to the claimant, she received grievous injuries as her left shoulder was fractured and serious head injuries were caused, as a result ofwhich, she lost her mental balance and had to spent Rs.1 Lakh in treatment. She claimed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs under various heads. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and theowner of the truck pleaded that the accident took place because of negligence of the driver of the tractor and they are not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3 insurance company denied involvement of the truck in the said accident and stated that the tractor was carrying 35 persons at the time of acddent which itself is a proof of negligence. It was also stated by the insurance company that the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor and trolley are necessary parties and the claim petition is not maintainable in their absence. It was also stated that respondent No.1, the driver of the truck was not having valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurancecompany is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the driver of the truck was negligent and the accident has been caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the said driver, however, the learned Claims Tribunal found that in all the records of the treatment submitted by the claimant, her name is mentioned as Firtinbai wife of Ukram, whereas the claimant is Firtinbai wife of Pukram. Her name is also not mentioned as a witness in the charge-sheet Ex.A-1 submitted by the Police. Her statement was also not recorded during investigation -fi; x :',.ai-^ m^ 'y c"-"^ "%tea^ 3 and thus it is not proved that the claimant Firtinbai wife of Pukram had received any injuries in the said accident. 6. This Court has perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. The final report Ex.A-1 does not include the claimant asa witness even though it contains names of 52 persons. In Ex.A-3, name of Firtinbai is mentioned as wife of Ukram. Similar description is mentioned in Ex.A-8. 7. After perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal do not suffer from any perversity and the claimant has failed to prove that she has received any injury in the accident. The Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim petition. The present appeal has no substance, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Gopal Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge