SftflieSefteS Q BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL ra NO. n^G) /2007 -^ APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS 5>' Mohit Ram S/o Balbhadra Bareth, aged about 47 years, Occupation Ser^ice, R/o village Gorra, P.S. Kotra Road^, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Lilambar Prasad S/o Gauri Lal Bareth, R/o village Pusalda, P.S. Pusaur, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) ^•'' ^ ^:. ^^ ^••r ^'^•' '^' ^'^^ 2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance ^' p- '^ ^^ Company, Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 _CQMEEN&A'EUM"^CW^—- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 1339/2007 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Mohit Ram Versus Lilambar Prasad and another SBt- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri U.R. Koshley, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Adv. for the respondent No, 2. None for respondent No. 1 though served. ORAL ORDER (23-8-2010) This is claimant's appeal against dismi^sal of his Claim case No. 165/2006 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh vide its order dated 14-8-2007. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- As per appellant/claimant, on 5-5-2006, he along with his wife Kachra Bai, son Awadesh Kumar and sister Shrimet Bai were sitting in an auto rickshaw. When the said auto rickshaw reached near village Kosamnar, motorcycle No. CG 13 F 0275 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from opposite direction, dashed the auto rickshaw as a result of which, the appellant sustained fracture of right knee, he also lost two teeth and sustained injuries in different parts of the body. He was treated in private hospital ofDr. Agrawal. He filed F.I.R. by U.P.C. after about six months when the respondent No. 1 did not pay amount of treatment expenses despite assurance. He filed claim petition claiming Rs. 1,94,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. By filing written statement, the respondents No'. 1 and 2 denied their liability to pay compensation. The respondent ^^i^ f/^ "^. "w'-y No. 1 also denied the involvement of his motorcycle in the said accident. Both the parties have led evidence. The appellant examined himself as well as one eye-witness Jagdish and Dr. Prashant Agrawal. The respondents did not examine any witness. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, dismissed the claim petition holding the appellant failed to prove involvement of the motorcycle in the said accident. Shri Koshley, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has proved the factum of involvement of the motorcycle in the said accident by adducing cogent evidence but learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the same and in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove involvement of the motorcycle in question in the said accident and in dismissing the claim petition. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance /Company submits that no F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant. The letter alleged to be F.I.R., sent to the police station has not been proved by calling the police persons as witness. The doctor himself has said that when the appellant came for treatment, he has not informed about the injuries sustained in any accident because in that case, he must have reported the matter to police. It is highly improbable that if the collision took place in an auto rickshaw and motorcycle, no other person would be injured except the appellant. More over, the appellant has not examined his wife, or other children as his witness and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim and the above finding deserves to be upheld. ;^%rf^.1 ^ ..- ^ %^!^!h t ^:.^'^'^. ^r> '^.--'' /^ 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ofthe case. 9. The claimant in para 11 of the statement has stated that he has not lodged any F.I.R. in the police station. He has further stated that the information of the accident was given by him vide Ex. P-1 to police. He had intimated the doctor about the accident and after that and before sending the letter to police, he has not informed anybody about the said accident. He has further stated that number 6f motorcycle was written by one person on paper and the same was handed over to his wife but he was unable to identify the said person. Neither that person nor his wife has been examined. He has further stated in para 17 of his statement that there is no receipt regarding sending of F.I.R. to police station. Jagdish Prasad, the witness examined by the appellant has stated in para 4 that Mohitram informed him about the number of motorcycle. He also stated that he is not aware as to who has noted the number of the motorcycle. He has also stated that he did not inform the police about the accident. A.W. 3 Dr. Prashant Agrawal has stated in para 5 of his statement that the appellant did not inform him about the injuries as accidental otherwise he must have reported the matter to the police. Looking to the above evidence and looking to the fact that Ex. P- 1 was also not proved by the appellant by producing any police person in this regard, that too, the letter alleged to be sent by the appellant through UPC is sent after about 6 months of the accident, it cannot be said that the appellant has proved the factum of involvement of the motorcycle in the said accident. 10. It is settled law that it is for the appellant/claimant to prove involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and in its absence, the claim is liable to be dismissed. . ^ ^'^ :'\-.^:^1'-.^ ^—;",// s! 11. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has not committed any irregularity or illegality in arriving at the above conclusion. 12. The appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge v