Ca) BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $ing£a Banach M.A.NO./2‘§ [2006 L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 FOR OUASHING THE AWARD DATED 12.05.2006 APPELLANT Purshottam Lal, son of Shri TNbN-APPLICANT “ Janak Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years,” oécupation — vehicle owner, resident of Village Banipathar, P.S. and Tah. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS \ k. . Amount awarded by the Tribunal — Rs. 18,583/ — ii. Court fee affixed at Rs. fig/9’ Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 12312006, passed by Shn' M.D. Jagdadia, RESPONDENT WM (Parmeshwar Prasad, son of CLAIMANT I Shri Santram Dansena, aged about 40 years, occupation Government service (Gram Sahayak) .. resident of village Limgaon, $¢f§ Block Malkharoda, District ’ Q?é&'§:§-’f u Janjg‘r—Champa, at present §§ resided at Madanpur, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4, XI—HC—78 @ MW,W,W . mm w; 200g WW (13W) Wwm WWW WW§WW wwwm é;31%11311%$ 14.09.2665 8hri Armt Sharma, mam ad ccunsel for the appeiiant. Heard on MOP. NO. 1569/06, appHcation for condonatian of delay in filing the appeai. // / Learned counSel for the appeHant seeks to withdraw this appiication as the same has wrongiy be fiied and the appeai has been prefei'red wei! within time. Accordingiy, the above plication is diemissed as withdrawn. ' p Heard on admission. The appellant has prefe red this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the impu d award dated 12.D5.20Q6 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Clai s Tribunal in Claim Case No. 17/06 and by which a sum of Rs. 18,583/- h s been‘awarded in favour of the claimants for the injuries sustained bythem. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunat has ignored the fact that vend r of the vehicle was a necessary party for adjudication of the appeal as t e vehicle was sold on the same date when the accidenttook place and it\ as only temporarily registered in the name of the appellant and not perm nently with the registering authorities as no permanent registration numbe was ailotted to the appellant. He further submits that in statement on o th. the iniured has stated that the incident occurred at 6.45 pm but from perusal of medical examination report it is evident that he was examined t6.30 p.m. However, he doeshot/dispute e g e \V“ XI-HC‘78 HW,W§S,W ’ m:@.v./.L3f©..:. m 200g WWGEIW) mam WWW mafzam WW&‘WW %3T%Ha1%¥r that a report was iodged m $he )oiice station against the driver of the in questior wae eeized in connection with the said vehicie and the vehicle accident Since the vehicle was temporarily regietered in the name of the appellant on the date of accident, it has rightly been held that the vendor of the vehicle was not a necessary party. So far as the difference in timing between the incident and the hosbltalization of the injured ie concerned, the same being a very narrow time gap is not significant and on the basis of above discrepancy rejected. the respondent’s claim could not have been ln the result, the appeal oeing devoid of substance is hereby dismissed at the motion Consequentiy, disposed of. stage itselt. MCPNO. 15E8/06 and i.A.No. 2887/06 stand Sd/'— Dhirendra Mishra Judge RT.O. {y ,