mGM<X>ireTOFCHHATTIS€»SLRH:mLASPU^ CQRAM: HON^BL& SttRt S.R. IIAYAK, CJ & lW^SS^8»^^M.SISR^£^TAy^^. ;c^ MISCBLLANBOU8 APPBAL/ N0. 428/2006 APPEfcLANT RESPONDENTS liiil. v3 Cf United India Insura^ Cmsipasiy^^^^^^^^ ^ Office, JailiRoad, Raipur (CG). V<ersus Tulmram Sahu, S/o. BMaai^^ Sa]3ii, agedjaboutSO yeare viU^e j Jiafara, PS MahasajmiiQd, Dist Maliasamujad (CG). Jliuxauk I^^ l^ate Ba<irij Pras^ Yitl^e Ratakat, PS Arang, Tehsil & Dijst. Raipuf (CG). Neera Bai,J w/o. IMe Ram^ aged about|45 years, Sukhrawai^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B R<amlal, aged^a^ j Thagia? S/p, Late^^^^ R about 15 y^ars, Santosli, s^o, Late Ramlat, ^ed abput 24 years. Chetaa, S^o. LMe Raxnl^ about 12 years/ {Sl. No. 4, 5 & 7 Minors tfarough fheir mofher Neera Bai (respondtent iio.3)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (^ Ba2?a^a2^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ W Tuiagao^ S. Tunigaon, Dist. MahasaimMid (CG), PRESENT: Shri Saiyay S.Agravml, coix^^ ^^^ i^Wiii& :v' m: ^ PRALORDER (Dated 27/11/2006) The foUowiag oral order of the Court was passed by Vgay Kiunar Shrivastava, J. TIiis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hencejforth, <<the Act^) has been filed agamst ttie awaid dated 18/09/2006 passedbyIstAdditional]^ Tribunal, Mahasamund, in Claioi Case No. 245/2005 wliereby award of Rs,4,22,000/- (Rupees fbur lakhs and tweiity-two thousaad) has been passed iii favour of respondents No, 3 to 7 agamst respondents No,l & 2 aiid^^^^t^ Factual matnx ofthe case, ia bnef, is fhat on 12/04/2005 Raoilal (sitice deceased) was returrmig to his | village Tuxagaon by his BixUock-cart aiid when rcspondent No.l driviag Tractor^^^ rcgistration No. CG-04-ZD-3795 aad CGT-04-ZC-6317 ia. a rash and neglige3it maiiner daslted^^^^^t^ The saM vehicte is owned by respondent No,2 aod was^^^^^^ Raoilal sustaiiied injuries aiid succui^ No, 3 to 7 fited an applicatk>n^ ^ u^ 166 of the Act, claioimg compensatton of Rs,16,00,000/- (Rupees^^ ^ only) on account of death of Raiiil^ appellaot ao^l respondents No. 1 & 2. Respon^ stateinent whereas resppndentNp,! fhou^^^ took place by the aforesaid vehiole when he was drivmg the same, but contested fhe claini stating fhat deceased himself^ w^ responsible for the accident Appella^ on the ground that the accideiit did not take plape witii Tractor fe,:^- aad Trolley, but was cau^^ aad the claiin has been filed as a result of colhision by claimants witli fhe driver aad owner 6f tJie aforesakl Tractor aad Trolley. Leam^ed Tribuiial a^r evahiat^ heM fhM respondent No.l driviag aiid iiegligent maiiner caused^^^^^^t^ Ramlal died aM^ a^ award,..-^ :. •:'-^-/'^\/'i^.i'' : - •:. ' :. .-. , . |; Leanied couixsel Jfor the appellant retying on fhe juxlgment rendered by the Honlale High Coiirt of Karaataka in United Znidia Jnsufvmee Co. Ltd^f Vs. Bussetin jSa& find others1 vehementiy coiatemied fhat soon after fte^^^^^^^^^^^a^ first iafbrmation report was lodged by one Budharu, disclosing that soixie unlmown veh^^ <CMetadorff has dashed jdeceased's BuUock- Cart, Crimewas registered aod ultto as vehicle aad driver coiiM iiot be trgced out. Therefore, the fmdmg arrived at by tl»Tribunal is eriDneous jaod perverse, From perusal of award, it is elear that e^^ (AW/2) who was traveling in the Tractor & TroHey No. CG-04-ZD- 3795 and CGT-04-ZC-6317, has witnessed the iacident aud categorically stated tfaat driver of fhe Tractor - respondent No. 1 couM not control the Tracto^ accident, thereafter takiag the vehicle fled away firom fhere and as a resiilt of fhat accideiit Raoilal mstaiitaneousty^^^ the spot His oral evidence is duty corn^orat^ with a<l^^ driver ofTractor - respondent No. 1. To rebut the evidence adducedl by claimant, appeUaat could riot Mduce^^^^^^^^^^^^a^ evidence. J@ven fhe first ' 2006 ACJ 1352 ^,i;l--.^_^..i Rfflc3!llt:;jlr!l ^s^^^^'^^^: 'l'^-: ! Raju ioibrmatk)n report which is not a substantive piece of ewidence has not been got proved by writer of fhe dQcument or by the informant Budharu. In absence of aay evideace, to rebut fhe evidence addiiced by fhe claiinaiit duly adinitted by driver of the vehicle, learned Tnbuual yery co^ fhe Tractor & Tmlley ia a rash and neglj^ent xnanner caused the accideiit as result of which Raailal died, The case Iftttfed Jndta Insurance Compcmy IAA (supra) reUed upori by tbe appellaiit is distihguishable oii fhe facts ofthe case, No other poiats have been raised durmg ai^umerits, In tfae result, the appeal beiag devoid ofinerit is liable to be dismissed aiid is accordingty disxaissed, No^costs^^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge