J. ^. 15; IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.rONO.9^ /2009 APPELLANTS r 1. /' ^s^ .......'%?^ ^•"r^°" /^7 ^-"'^^ ^>^ ^-••"' ^' Agarman Das S/o. Kewat Satnami, aged about : 41 years, R/o. Village : Samoda, Police Chowki : Jewra - Sirsa, Tahsil & District : Durg (C.G.). NON-APPLICANT N0. 1 ^ Kewat Satnami S/o. Asha Ram Satnami, aged about : 45 years, R/o. Village : Samoda, Police Chowki : Jewra Sirsa, Tahsil & District : Durg (C.G.). NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ Sumitra Bai Wd/o. Late Devi Prasad Deshlahrey, aged about : 40 years. ^- Ravi Prasad S/o. Late Devi Prasad Deshlahrey, aged about : 16 years. Bela Kumari D/o. Late Devi Prasad Deshlahrey, aged about : 14 years. Kumari Madhu D/o. Late Devi Prasad Deshlahrey, aged about : 10 years. Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 are a minor and presented the claim application through legal guardian mother Smt. Sumitra Bai, Wd/o. Late Devi Prasad Deshlahrey, aged about : 40 years, All are R/o. Village : Samoda, Police Chowki : Jewra Sirsa, Tahsil & District : Durg (C.G.). CLAIMANTS 5^ Smt. Maina Bai Wd/o. Sukh Lal Satnami, aged about : Unknown, R/o. Village Samoda, Police Chowki Jewra Sirsa, Tahsil & District : Durg (C.G.). NON APPLICANT N0. 3 MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 m1f f ^\69 ^(,\0 3i^r'^?k*' emi-.^^rpOTw B^T ^TPTRTEf, '^fl^T'TS', f^fray ,C()^D-^-r8/G3 ^t^"""a"""""""""""""""""""-""-^200 ('^t^^') ??(HW^i??3?!^? SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICB N.K. AOARWAL 19-8-2009 Shri Pushpendra appellant. Heard on admissiofi 2. This owner's appe^l 28-11-2008 passed by Clatms Tribunal (FTC),| whereby and whereund^i been awarded in favoilr appellants. cjase 3. Brief facts of the Devi Prasad (hereinaftdr going to vUlage Samod^ other labourers sitting ijn CG-07-D/3601 and trojUey D/3602. In between, trolley tumed turfle duej and pursuant to the inji he died. '^?€?f^pft^f'HI^f ^ fe^t TN^gK ^3?fi?H3?r^r Kumar Patel, Advoeate, for the is directed against the award dated Ithe XItli Additional Motor Accident Durg in Claim Case No. 90/2007 ^r, an amount of Rs. 2,47,220/- has of the claimants as against the are that on 26-1-2007, deceased r referred to as the deceased) was from viUage Pafhariya along wifh the tractor beanng registration No. bearing registration No. CG-07- Samoda square, the said tractor to negligent driving of appellant No. 1 uries sustamed m the said accident, lin ntor ^(P<i€^<Nt<T ^WT^^ <l^^t^U:c<—FS/95-—11 /2008—1,00,000. t "'A:S': >., '^--^' •:"^.-^I.HC- .78 ^Tl^T ^T fqilc^ TT^T 3TT^?T $r)+li<=r) hNB»^ HI+1CTI «»*11<S|» B"^ -^i^W^, ®til-M<l<o,fc(<vll-H^< r^^co^. 359/03 :^200 ^TT^T 'v^^ ( ^I^^) ?^nw;Rf^T ^n^T Gbl<<(<rt<flvl 'HW^Tf "^ fS^ <pai^l< '^'^tRm^T^r 4. Since the vehicle |was not insured, the claimants preferred application unjder Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 again^t fhe driver and fhe owner of the |;ompensateion to the tune of Rs. Fthe deceased. tractor trolley claiming 7,40,000/- for the death oi 5. Leamed Tribiinal or^ a close scruttny of the evidence led and fhe material placed o|n record by the parties, passed the award awarding compens|ation in favour of the claimants to the tune ofRs. 2,47,220/-| against the driver and fhe owner of the vehicle along with inl|erest at fhe rate of 8% per annum from the date of applicatio|i Le. 11-5-2007. 6. The only submissij^n made by Shri Patel, leamed counsel for the appell^nts, is that as per the claim application, the accident 4ccurred on 26-1-2007 whereas this fact has been denied b5| fhe appellants and despite their denial, the award has bee^i passed. 7. After hearing leam^d counsel for the appellants and after perusal of fhe recor^ as also the impugned award, it is crystal clear that leamed'ITribi.inal has come to fhe conclusion with regard to ttie accide4t after appreciating the pleadings of \. the parties and evidence ^ed by them and the material placed F .^^y'^^^ /f^\ j ^ ^^y XI-HC—78 3TT^T^Tf^fhF ^T^H 3ii^i sft*iict^ ?/ ^ ^L^ T^T^Mi<nM,^^wi<o, f^<ni<Hy (nft(LO'NT..35'8/^ *IIHCTI a»*ii<t» 'TP^IOO 3TI^?TTT^R' (<i°*Isq<i?) '^HW 1RfeT ^TT^fT on record and, in the cons is no illegality or mfirmity arriving at the said conclus by the appellants. 8. Therefore, this app deseryes to be and is itself. feal has not ments. The same her^by dismissed at admission stage cbl^f<>1<i1l 1RW^ff ^ 'fe^ <P»t^l< '^3tRm3:n^?r ^dered opinion of this Coiut, there [committed by leamed Tribunal in |on. No other point has been raised Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 4-