? IN THE HSGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, APPELLAINT NON- APP LICANT iATTSSGARH ,A. N0. -2-S-?/ 2006 Ssas Bhajan .Agrawal, Aged about 30 years, S/o. Dhansee Ram Agrawal, R/o. Deviganj Road, Ambikapur; District Surguja (CG) VFRCIK: RESPONDiENTS APPLICAMIT ,.-/ yM/ £^¥ yey >••$*' ^' ''^' '.s^ 11 Deputy Area M.ahager, /- S.E.C.L. Kumda, Sub-Area Kumda, ^ J] 41 Tahsit -Surajpur, District- Surauja (CG) Milan Sai, S/o. Rajendra Sai, Aged about 40 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o. Kumda, Tahsil -Surajpur, District - Surguja (CG) United India Insurance Company, Branch- Ambikapur, Distt. -Sursuia (CG) Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Ambikapur, Distt. -Surguja (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHSCLE ACT \.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR M. A. No. 255 of 2006 AppeUant Bbajan Agrawal Versus Respondents Deputy Area Maiiager & ofhers APPEAL UNDERSECTIONJ/73 OFTHEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Honlle Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Maaoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the appeUant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. Shri Ghaushyam Patel, Advocate for fhe respondent No.4. ORDBR (Oraa ( Passed on fhis 1st day of December, 2009 ) Per Satish K. Agnihotrt J. Heard. 1. The instaat appeal arises Iroin the award dated 29.11.2005, passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuaal, Ambikapur, Sui^uja in Claun Case No. 4/2003, whereby the claiin of the appeUant was disimssed on the ground that the appellant has failed to estabUsh fhat the appeUant sustained serious iujuries on account of the accident caused by the bus bearing registoratioii No. M.P.27/6498. 2. The facts in brief are fhat fhe appeUant was travelmg by tus laotorcycle bearing registration No. M.P.27-E/0084 on fhe Ambikapur - Maaendragarh road to his factoiy, situated at Ajirma. At that time, aliead Holy Cross School, near culvert, he found the aUeged bus comiag fi-om. fhe ofher side, which according to the appeUant, bit fhe appeUaat, he feU down aud as a consequence, fhe appeUant sustained serious uijuries. There is no niention offhis fact iii the F.I.R. Ex. A/39 which was registered in the PoUce Station. Dehat, Ambikapur. Even ofherwise, it was fouiid proved that after the appeUant crossed fhe alleged bus, there was a dog came mnning froin the other side, which caused faUiag of the inotorcycle, driven by ttie appeUant and as a consequence he sustaiaed iajuries. 5. No docuinent has been produced by the appeUant to estabUsh fhat ^ fhe alleged iajuries were caused due to accident by the bus wifh fhe luotorcycle. The appeUaat has miserably failed to establish his case that fhe accident was caused due to fhe rash and negligent driving of the bus, owned by fhe respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No.2. Haviag heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties aad baviog perused fhe pleadings and origuial docuinents avaUable in fhe record of fhe Tribunal, we are of fhe opinion that £hefindings recorded by the Tribunal and fhe impugned award are unexceptionable and do not suffer fi-om aay irregularity aad illegaUty. The Tribunal has properiy considered aU the evidences aud has coiae to just conclusion. For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the view fhat no interference is warranted with the impugned award aad as such, ttie appeal is disinissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- I^.K. Agrawal Judge Thakur