:JM1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C.) N0. 5> 4 ^ /2008 Ttf+i^ APPELLANTS:- 1) (feka&tBai Sahu !^ ..•"'- -^ ^y "^/ ^" y 2) 3) 4) 5) W/o Late Chain Singh Sahu <>" Aged about 37 years Yogendra Kuraar Sahu S/o Late Chain Singh Sahu v Aged about 22 years, Nokhelal Sahu S/o Late Chain Singh Sahu Aged about 19 years, Keshar Sahu S/o Late Chain Singh Sahu Aged about 16 years, Johtarin Bai Sahu W/o Late Fhaguva Ram Sahu Aged about 68 years AppeUant No.4 is ininor Through : Natural Guardian Tetaki Bai Sahu All are living in Village Parsada, P.0. Parsada, Thana Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distt- Durg (C.G.) •L^ f, ^l RESPONDENTS '/jf ~ ^ VERSUS 1) Sukhram Nishad i''"' S/o Jivrakhan Isfishad R/o- Village Dotopar, Thana 8s Tahsil Gumr, Distt- Durg (C.G.) Through : Dindayal Sahu S/o Patiram Sahu, R/o Village Dotopar, Thana & Tahsil Gurur, Distt- Durg (C.G.) T 2) Dindayal Sahu S/o Patiram Sahu, R/o Village v' Dotopar, Thana SE Tahsil Gurur, Distt- Durg (C.G.) 3) The National Insurance Company Ltd., Main Office- 3 Midiltan Street Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta 700-071 Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor of Navin Bazar : Phool Chowk, Raipur Tahsil 8s Distt Raipur (C.G.) & Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Aakash Ganga Campus, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil 8s Distt- Raipur (C.G.) VA&^'- ^ ^'A^ - ^- ^-^'/cm> :'c() /' MEMO OFAP^ALUNDBR SECTION 173 OF MOTER VEHICLE ACT 1988. ,-4—! t [ } HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A. (Q No. 347 OF 2008 Tekari and others Versus SuKhram Nishad Order For consideratiom -12-2009 Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Sd/- N.K.Agarwa! Judge Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Postfor^ -12-2009 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge mOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BIIASPUR M.A. (Q No. 347 OF 2008 Tekari aad others Versus Sukhram Nishad Hon. Shn Satish K. Agiihotri and Hon. Shn N.K. Agarwal, JJ PRBSBNT: Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate, for appellaats. Shri A.K. Pi'asad, Adv. for respondents No. 1 aiid 2. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDES ( 7 -12-2009) Per N.K. Aearwal, J 1. Heard. 2. The instant appeal has been directed by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 30-6- 2007 passed by the XIth Additional Motor Accidenf Claims Tribunal (FTCj, Durg in Claim Case No. 163/2006 whereby and whereunder fhe claim petition of the claimant ffled under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly, the Acf) has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are fhat on 4-6-2006, deceased Chaia Singh Sahu along with his fnend Vistmu was going on a motor cycle bearing Registration No. CG 05/7429 as pUlion rider from village Charota to viUage Parsada. When fhey reached near Padkibhat, the respondent No. 1 dashed them drivmg Tractor and Trolley bearm$ Registration No. CQ 05/B/2505 and 2506 in rash aad negligent manner, as a result ofwhich, they fell down. Deceased Chain Smgh Sahu received grievous injuries and suecumbed to his injuries 'vss during treatment. The claimants ffled a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 4,81,000/- as compensation for the death of Chain Stngh. 4. Leamed Tribiinal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, the iuateri.al placed and fhe submissions made by the parties, dismissed fhe claim petition on the ground that it is not proved fhat deceased Chaia Singh died m the accident due to rash aad negligent driving of the Tractor and TroUey by the respondent No. 1 and he died on account of crushuig by a bufialo. 5. Leamed eounsel for fhe appeUants would contend fhat fhe award is passed without proper appreciation of the material placed on record as there is eyidence that deceased Chain Str^h died due to fhe rash and negligent driving by fhe driver of the Tractor and Trolley. 6. Per contra, leamed counsel for fhe respondents supported fhe unpugned award. 7. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and perused the record. 8. Leamed Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased died due to crushing by buffalo and not due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trolley by the respondcut. In fhe police papers also, the cause of death is mentioned as crushir^ by biiffalo. Even tfae report of fhe incident was lodged after 12 days. The above finding is based on the evidence available on record. 9. In view of the above, appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. \,: Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge