INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.Gt MISCELLANEOUSAPPEALN^^/AOOZ KvfSI't APPfiLLANT UMANT 1) Rohitjajorli'iged about 11 yrs, S/o. Vrmal Jain/Through legal guardian Father Vimal Jain S/o tenhaiya lal Jain R/o. Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur, Tah &District: Raipur (CG) RESPON15ENTS / M0K1-APPLICANT '"1) '.^^ ^^1 ^^y ^^6^ ^^' ^- VERSUS Shyamlal, agecl 30 years, S/o. Duliram Yadav, Occupation-Driver PSfe). Subhastr Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil&@ist:I:&ipur(C.G) Nirmal kumarJain, aged 28years S/o HarkchandJain, R/o Samata Colony,Raipur Tahsil & Dist: Raipur (C.G) The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Branch Office H-34, Cannaught. Circle, New Delhi Through Diyisional Manager, Divisional OfFice,3ai!^ead, Raipur(C.G) 1» ...,... .._„ Miscetlaneous Appeal under/section 173 MotorVehicleAct 1988 '>!'! !"' 1 llt a'!iiii L HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGiftRM AT BII.ASPUR APPELLANT Claimant Misc. AppealNo. 344 of 2003 RohitJain RESPONDENTS Non^mDllcant VERSUS Shyamiat &0thers APPEAL UNDERSEGTION17SOF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hpn'bte Shri Justiee I.M. Quddusi & 1-lQh'hle Shri .JusSG^ N.iK. ^arwal. Pr^ntg'i:^SI|m^|Sjn^|:|il|^'|^6e||E||||ja|||lla^ ^hriShatlenirajl§tisil^gi|||i|Bi?|i|FEi||lt?0ri(^^ 1. 2. (Passedori6.-t0.2010) Per: I.M. Quddusl, J. Heard ^ : ^••/:' ' : ' : '••'^ ' • • ;:; The instant appeal has been preferred by, the appellajnt/elaimant againist the awaFd dated 11.10.2002 passed by th& Mh^^^idclitional Motor Accklent Claims Tribunat Rajpur (fbr short'theTribunal')jnGlaimcase No.51^99, cligjnissingthe ctaimappliGationpreferFedbytheappellant/Glaimant. Brief facts Qfthecaseasper elaimants arelhat, on 22.05.1997, the appellant, vvhife driving hls Tata Siyara beartng Fegistration;Np. &l--3/(3.J-26Kt, yvasidaslied by Bus bearing registrafion RJ-^4-B/4575,?due to^ wtii^^ ••.V- sustainecl niulliple injurjes. 3. The Glaimant/appeliant Tribunal tfflcler preferreid an apgtiGatton tjefone the iSeGti6h(1^6fttieMotor\^icles^A^ tUe Driver of ^ '<» SBSi K Sate eompensation to the tuneof Rs.4,0(y,000/- for the injuries sustainedbyhiminthesaidaccident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material availableon the record, and submissions of the parties, dismissed the application preferred by the appellant/claimant, holding that the Bus driver was driving the vehicle rashlyand negligently, but, the driverand owner ofthe said bus has not been made asapartyrespondentinthectaim appltesation, and further, the treating doctor has also not been produced in the witness box^ 5. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or any good grounct to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunat. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Noorder asto costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi .ludge ! 'Sd/- \ N.K.Agrawal Judge \ 'rii.i-