ti IN THE HON 'BL BILASPLR M.A.No. ?90 /2002 / APPELLANTs : (1x state of Chhattisgarh NON APPLICANTS Kg” Raigarh Through district, the Collector Raigarh . (2) Public Works Deparhnent Through Sub Divisional Gfficer P.W.D. Patthalgaon (C.Go) / f VERSUS TxPPLICANrs RESPONDENTS : é (l) Smt. aged Gomti 23 years Bai, , wife of late Shri Deo Sai Jha, caste Kanwar. (2) smt. Lotri Bai, aged 52 yrs. Wife of late Shri sukhnu Ram Jha, caste Kanwar , ‘g; Both are resuients of Village Konkiyakhar, Tah. Patthalgaon District Raigarh (C. .) (3) Bhikham das s/o not known, address P w D.Office Patthalgaon, distt. Raigarh (c G.) 53 é. x APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VE-IICLES MIT ' HIGH CéURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 740 of 2002 State of Chhattisgarh 85 another Versus Respondents MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appellants Smt. Gomti Bai & others DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 86 Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate with Shri Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Hamida Siddque, Ad€ocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 26th day of April, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. the appellants/State arises from the award dated 9.7.2002, passed by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Janjgir Champa in Claim Case No. 5/2002, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,40,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The instant appeal, tiled by from the date of the application. are that on 3.3.1995 in the evening at about 6.00 —9232, which 2. The facts, in brief, p.m. the vehicle—Tractor, bearing registration No. M.P.Z. en, in a rash and negligent manner by the non- hit Devdas and Sukdev. In that was being driv applicant No.1 (Bhikhamdas), accident Devdas and Sukdev both received injuries but Devdas succumbed to the injuries. er Section 1988 for award of a total 3. The legal heirs of deceased Devdas filed a claim case und 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,. COInpensation of Rs. 15,30,000/ - under various heads. The case of the non—applicants/ State was that the ve was registered in the name of the Executive Engine hicle in question er, Public Works Department Q Electrical Division, Bilaspur. The deceased along with VJ m“ @ the injured was ”going on a new motorcycle to Lundeg from Patthalgaon. The deceased was not having a valid and effective drivin lince and en he did not know how to properly ride the motorcycle and the motorcycle w not insured. Further, th as e decease wa driving th motorcl in rash and negligent manner, seeing this, th non—aplicant No.driver had stopped the Tractor after taking it the left side of th oad. Even then, the deceased could not onrol the motorcycle nd struck to the Tractor, which was stationary. It is thus alleg that it was also a ase of contributory gligence. 5. Leaed Tibunal, having egar the facts situation and the evidence on record he that the ccident was caused due to rash and neglient ig of he drir the Tractor, as a result of which Devdas died d it w not proved hat the deceased was rash and neglient in ring the otorcce. Therefore, learned ribunal has a sum f 0 to the ed pper e r l ’ d th t t .e im wa n er w o w t i t t u re R ge y village Chowkidar. The illion rider has also given evidence to the above effet. Thus, there is no so of intference as there is no contradiction in the evidence on record and further, it cannot be said that it was a case of contributory negligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla and others (2007) 13 SCC 476 in paragraphs 9, 12 and 13 has held as under “9.‘ Where an accident occurs owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle, resulting in sufferance of injury or death by any third party, the driver would be liable to pay compensation therefor. Owner of the vehicle in terms of the Act also becomes liable under the 988 Act. In the event g ce ve d s e yce a e p 1/ on e r ct a ed c ne rn r rd to ld a g drivn t ve of an as t g div myl T warded a o Rs. 3,4,900/— claimants as compensation along with inerest at the rate of 9 er annum from the date of the application .e 26.7.1995. We have har learned counsel aaing for the partis and peused the ower Courts record. It is foun at from the very ou se i. in the F.I.R. the case of the claants sregarding rashly and egligently driving by the Tractor driv. The heel f the motorcycle as entangled but the fac for consideraton is tha the injuries were on the left side of the body of the deceased, according o the injry port. The F.I.. was lodd b t % p i. p c cpe er : 1 vehicle is insured, Which in the case of a third party, having regard to sub-section ’(2) of Section 147 of the Act: is mandatory in character, the insurance company would statutorily be enjoined to indemnify the owner.” “12. In Narbada Devi whereupon reliance has been placed, this Court 'held that contents of a document are not automatically proved only because the same is marked as an exhibit. There is no dispute with regard to the said legal proposition.” “13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them.” / No other ground i.e. quantum is raised by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. In View of the above, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Fl. L/x \ 4; Sd/- ‘\\" Sd/- l ‘1.M. Quddusi \ Prashant Kumar Mishra l Judge " Judge Thakur l / 3