1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL NO. 6L7 OF 2002 { ‘ Ramashankar Prasad Gupta 3/9 Shrl Thakurchand Gupta Occupation Advocate $Aged 28 years R/o Vlllage-Ghagr District Jashpur \ VERSUS APPELLANT M3 Xanwei ged 39 years Lakhra Vlllage S/o [\fagu Baghuma Lakhra 4/ TahsH-Jashpur District Jashpur RESPONDENT f9 a3 APEAL t UNDE SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT P A a ) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’bl Shri LM. Quddusi, J. & ‘’ Ramashankar Prasad Gupta. Versus I Manwel Lakhra. ¥ ‘ \ Sh Ghansam Pate dvocate aears on behalf of Sh e Meht u! the appellan i No ft ne ortheresponden > {1110412911 ywi th l. M. Qudclqsi, J, This appea has) been fle gainst the impugned award dated 14/0/2002 passed by the ll Motor Acent Cls Tal ( Jashrnagar ( ) Cl Ce N 5/2002 g the cl petitn. (2) Brief facts of the case, as pr the version of claimant are that, on 1/1998 a abt 11.30 a.m. in the morning claimant ank s o m 1 'a cl s Retr l 945. that time jeep bearing Registration No. MP 26 F4926 bein driven rashly an negligently by on-applicn dashe the g d nat d moorcycl of the cintplican at Baghima road, as a result of h ; ORAL ORDER a } Foiong oral order of e Court was passed by l l d a 6 cld alm rlbun F T C ) pu C G In alm as o dlsmlssm alm ip l e 4/0 t ou Ramshaar Prasad wa ging towards Jashpurnagar fro Ghaghr in motorcye Rajdoot bearing gisation No. MP. 26 H 9i At tje lama/apt whic claimant fell down and received injuries. The claimant has l claimlied compensation of Rsv14,22,180/—t ,- waw‘mr; e Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. MA. N0. B25 of 2002 APPELLANT i{ g RESPONDENT i i ri hv l A pn ri ‘ Neraj a yon§e‘ox t JL r (3)§ The claims triunal dismissed the claim petition on finding that b i theiappeiiant himself was responsibie for causin’g the accident. (4): We have perused the entire evidence avaiiabie on record and havie also heard learned counsel for the appellant at length, and have also seen the spot map showing the accident position which is ' Ex.‘ l2. On perusal of the same it appears that the appellant himself was on wrong side, therefore; there is no scope of interference in the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal . (5)l Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed l l l i l l a (6)1 No order as to costs Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Sd/ ‘I.M. QUDDUSI Judge Judge