^ D.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATnSG-ARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C.Wo.k^../2006 Appellants Claimants before the tribunal ,i4fy 9.-W^ ^y yyy ^/ ^ I? ^y' 1. Lal Singh Rajput S/o Jagdev Singh Aged about 52 years, R/o Village Pagrikala, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil 85 District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Chetan Singh Rajput S/o Lal Singh, Aged about 34 years, R/o Village Pagrikala, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Nirbhay Singh Rajput S/o Lal Singh, Aged about 32 years R/o Village Pagrikala P.S. Dongergaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Tookam Singh S/o Lalsingh Rajput, Aged about 30 years ^-- (2) R/o Village Pagrikala, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Roop Singh S/o Lal Singh Rajput Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Pagr&ala, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .-;)- 6. Govind Singh S/o Lal Singh Rajput, Aged about 20 years, R/o Village Pagrikala, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents (Non-applicants before the Tribunal) 1. Khursid Ahamed S/o Sher Mohammad Aged about 36 years R/o Vill^ge Ratwada, Post Jalsada, P.S. Malekheda, District Alwar (Rajsthan) —Driverof the Vehicle— (3) 2. Hasan Mohamad S/o Sheikh Mohammad Khan, R/o ViUage Ratwada, Post Jalsada, P.S. Malekheda District Alv/ar (Rajsthan) —Ownerof the Vehicle— 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Kamthiline Rajnandgoan, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgoan Thro.- Branch Manager, MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, ^'^) XI-HC-78 T^T^I^Krl^, ^Tn<H41<o, fsl^Kriy HMC11 a^lTcfr^.y...^.(.^:t:^ 200^ 3TT^?T^^ (liGl^q<i€r) ^/^^i^ d1 (T3TT^?T$b^ich %^ ^ciTW^fN'^n^r Divisio^^ench: - Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadeo, .4§. CJ| .Hoi?lb!€_Mr<_&hjr€ndraMishra.. Jj 2-1-2007 Mr. C.R, Sahu, counsel for f^ Heard. The appeliants have prefer AA.otor Vehiclss Act, 1988, beino passed by the Motor Accident Accjdents Ciaim No.29/2006, wher^ of the appeilonts on the ground th •murder, but the same i^as intention^, entitled for cldm under Section 16^ Learned Tribunai in para 13 of first Informotion report Ex.P-l intentlonal murder of Jamvati was c| Ho^ever, before the Tribund PW- fir^t Information report, which i^ conciusion arrived by the Tribunai the first informotion report, as sucj in the same. Therefore, the award interference by this Court, as such, hereby dismi^^ed. e appeliants/cjdmGnt^. Sd/- Ag.ChiefJustice cbl^fcn41v1 TTTRoTf ^' te^t <Ri<:<ll< ^^r1^T3TI^T & ^ed this appeai under Section 173 of the a99rie^ed by the oward dated 8-11-2006 ^aims Tribunal, RGJnandg^on, in AAotor by learned Tribunal has dlsmi^sed the claim rf the death of Jomvati wos •not accjdentGJ rnurder/ therefore, the cjdmants are not of the Act. j»fthe award hos discussed tkat the peru^a! |2nd merg intimation Ex.P-2 shows that the wmitted by throwing her before a duniper. |2 Nirbhay Singh depo^ed contrary -to the \QS not beJJeved by the Tribunal. The \s based on sound reasonings and based on (h, we do not find any iilegdity or InflrmJty ta^sed by the Tribuna! not requlre ony |the apped is Jiabie to be dismi^ed and It Is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge r.i.^.