n^ ty. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BIIASPUR M.A.tCINo. 571/2006 APPBLLANT CLAIMANT RB8PONDB11T8 NOBr-Appi.icAlrrs Churaman Lal Rao, Vs. Naislni Raxa & Ofhers POST FOR JUDeMBMT ON^OJULY 2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^FUR M.A. (QNo.571/2006 TIffi! APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDBNTS 1 NON-APPLICANTS 2. Churaman Lal Rao, a^ged about 43 years, S/o. Jhumuk Lal Rao, resident of Shikaripara, Balod, TahsU Balod, District Durg (C.G) Vs. Nanlm Ram, S/o. Phul Singh Vishwakarma, aged about 35 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Village Hirapur TahsU Balod, Distt. Durg (CG) (DRIVER) Bhushan Lal Tiwari, S/o. Tukaram Tiwari, Resident of \^Uage Payla, TahsU Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) (OWNER) The New India Insuraiice Co. Ltd., Through the Branch Manager, Divisional Branch Ofiice, Bhilal, DistrictDurg (C.G.) (INSURANCE COMPANY) Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the appeUant. Shri Saurabh Shanna, counsel for respondent No. 3. JUDGMBNT 10.07.2007 Dhirendra Mlshra, J. The appellant/claimant has preferred fhis appeal against fhe award dated 23rd November, 2006 passed by leamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod Distt. Dva-g (C.Q.) in Claun Case No. 26/2005 whereby fhe petitlon of fhe appellant for compeiisation towards the injuries sustained by him in fhe motor veNcle accident dated 5.11.2004 tnvolvir^ motor cycle owned by appellant aad toractor bearii^ registration No. C.G. 05/ZG/0235 driven by Nanku Ram has been rejected. claim petition with a findin^ that the claimant has failed to prove tfaat respondent Nanku Ram, while driving the Iractor rashly aad negligently dashed with ftie motor cycle of tihe appellant. However fhe other issues i.e. fhe appeUant susteined grievous injuries resulting in pennanent disability; at the relevant time, the tractor was driven by Nanku Ram under fhe instructions of its owner Bhushan Lal, have be^i decided in fhe affirmative and it has been further held fhat fhe tractor was not being driven in breach of poMcy condition and the appellant is not entifled to recover any coinpensation as fhe acdident did not occur as a result of negligent driving of tractor by Nanku Ram/respondent No.l but the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the claimant himself as a result of slip. Leamed counsel for the appellant submits fhat the fmding of the tribunal fhat the claimant has failed to prove that he sustained mjuries because fhe tractor dashed ^ainst (he motor cycle, is based on unproper appreciation of overall evidenee available on record. Ttie appellant has exanuned hiinself, his broftier Yashwant as also two treating doctors. However, the version of the claimant has not been accepted on fi'ivolous grounds such as delay in lodging the First Information Report, the fact that fhe motor cycle was not damaged from the rear side in fhe accident as claimed by the appeUantetc. On fhe ofher hand leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted tiiat the inference drawn by the elaims tribunal that fhe appellant did not sustain injunes as a result of accident mvolving the tractor owned by respondent No.2, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduc^d by the claimant, driver and theowner ofthe tractor and the same does not call for interference. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties. I have perused the documentaiy and oral evidence available onrecord as also fhe iinpugned award. 7p I have perused the documentary and oral evidence available on record as also fhe impugned award. Leamed claims tiibunal while dealing wifli the fesue No. 1 in para 6 to 15 of the award, has re|ected fhe contention of the claimant fhat the respondent No. 1 whfle dnving the tractor rashly and negligently dashed against his motor cycle from the rear side as a result ofwhich he sustained permanent disability on followu^ grounds:- i) In fhe claim ^tition as also in his statement before thie Court it has been stated by fhe claimant fhat lus motor cycle was dashed from the rear side as a result of which carrier, dickey & mudguard were broken. The police got fhe vehicle examined by Vishnu-miechanic and he has also stated that affcer the accident, his vehicle did not dash against other vehicle, tree etc. and fell over embankment constructed for stopping fhe How of river. On fhe other hand, Yashwant A.W.-2 has stated ftiat he went to the place of incident immediately after the accident and saw fhat fhe motor cycle was dashed fl-om fhe front side and it was not dashed fixan the rear side and fix>m tfae condition of the motor cycle it appeared that any object has dashed against the inotor cycle on its front side and fhe rear side was mai^inalty dainaged. There was no sign that the motor cycle was dashed from flie rear side. ii) The document of Ex.D-4 filed and proved by respondent No. 1 driver, is fhe report ^ven by mechanic Vishnu who examined the motor cycle at the instance of police and in which it has been reported that there was damage in the front side of fhe motor cycle but the damage of the rear mud guard has not been mentioned. On the basis of this analysis, the tribunal has held tihat ftie account given by the non-applicant 4 No. 1 Nariku Ram that tfae accident occurred beeause the appellant was drivii^g the motor cycle rashly and negligently and tried to overtake the tractor and slipped and feU down appears to be probable. iii) The version of Naaku Ram also fmds support froai the diary statement of Ex.D-6 of Dr. Balram Sahu which mentions that fhie appeUant himself told fhat he feU down because his motor cycle slipped and ,since it was not medico legal fherefore the police was not informed by the said doctor. After appreciating fhe evidence ia detaU the tribunal has also obserred that the accident occurred on 5.11.2004 and fhe appellant remained hospitaUzed upto 17.11.2004. Particularly the statement of Dr. Katyan Sahu of Gayitri Hospital who has been exainined by the appellant as A.W.-3, has stated ttet fhe appellant was admitted in the hospital from 5.11.2004 to 17.11.2004 and fhe tribunal has held tfaat the appeflant rcmained hospitalized from 5.11.2004 to 17.11.2004.The appeUant and his brother Yashwant A.W.-2 have claimed fhat fhey have lodged the report on 18.11.2004 in the police station and fhey have also stated fhat a receipt of tiie report was given by the police, however no receipt has been filed and the report of fhe incident was lodged onty on 9.2.2005. Though, witness Yashwant, brother of the appellant, has claimed that fhe report was lodged in the police station after fhe treatment, but on fhe basis of fhe above evidence the tribunal has inferred fhat the report on 09.02.2005 with a false explanation that the claimant was undergoing treataient in fhe Gayitri Hospital from where he was discharged on 5.02.2005 and onty after his plaster was taken out, he lodged rcport on 9tfa ofFebruary 2005. Thus, the grounds on which the tribunal has held that fhe appellant faUed to prove that he sustained injiaries because his motor cycle was dashed by the tractor driven by Nanku Ram is A not worth reliance and has accepted the version of Nanku Ram- driver of fhe tractor that the motorcycle did not dash wifh his tractor and the appellant fell down as he was hunself rashly and negligentiy driving the motor cycle which slipped, is based on evidence available on rccord and the same does not call for interference. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingty dismissed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge