f I SSBIiBE^ BflBRiS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC) NO.fe^ 4 OF 2009 -7-7' 1. Tarun Kumar S/o. Sukendu aged about 48 years, R/o. Rest House Road, Gourela (Pendra Road), District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner) APPELLANTS lon-applicants) 1 «^ .^^ w^" ^01^^ i'i,\^'.2.^. Chotu @ Dhani Ram S/o. Kashi ^,^' .^' „ „ ~., Ram Panika, aged about 22 years, R/o. Village Sarbahera, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^ 4, ./' Jain Singh S/o. Panku Gond, aged about 26 years, Nanda Singh S/o. Panku Gond, aged about 24 years, ^y. /Pappu Singh S/o. Panku Gond, aged about 20 years, Sundariya Bai D/o. Panku Gond, aged about 40 years, All are R/o. Village Karangara, Bijou.ri, P.S. Gourela, Tahsil Pendra Road; District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimants) .^ Baja^ Aliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Marg, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) MISCELLANESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION T73 QF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 5. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 894 of 2009 Appellants Tarun Kumar Sc, another Versus Respondents Jain Singh Sc, others And M. A. (0 No. 924 of 2009 Appellants Tarun Kumar 85 another Versus Respondents Surati Bai 85 others MISC. APREAL UNDER SECTION.173_OFTHEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDER (Orall ( Passed on this 1 lul day of March, 2011 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant two appeals, filed by the appellants (owner and driver of the vehicle) arise from the common award dated 8th May, 2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road in Claim Cases No. 12/2008 ( Jain Sirigh 85 others Vs. Tarun Kumar 8s others) and 24/2008 (Surti Bai 85 others Vs. Chotu alias Dhaniram & others ), awardirig a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- and Rs. 2,48,000/-, respectively, fixing liability to make pa5Tiient of compensation upon the owner & driver of the vehicle, jointly and severally. / "%..' The claimants have also filed cross objections for enhancement of the amount of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that both the claim cases arise out of one and the same accident occurred on 15.1.2008 by the Pickup, bearing registration No. M.P. 18 GA-0710. According to the claimants in both the claim cases deceased Panku Singh and Dhundha Yadav were hit by the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (Chotu) and this statement was supported by the claimants' wita'iess Bhaiyalal. However, this witness Bhaiyalal had lodged the F.I.R. in the police station to the effect that on the date of accident i.e. 15.1.2008 both the deceased were sitting in fhe vehicle as passengers. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly relied on the version of the informant (Bhaiyalal) of fhe F.I.R. that both the deceased were sitting in the vehicle as passengers. The claimants as well as witness Bhaiyalal have categorically stated that wh.en the deceased were going to worship at Banjari Temple at that time near Karangaghat the pffending vehicle hit both the deceased. Thus, the claim of the claimants in both the claim petitions comes under the category of third party. On going through the papers and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that there is no error in the findings recorded by learned Claims Tribunal. It is apparent that the claimanfs have tried to say that the deceased were third party by giving a different story contrary to the version recorded in the F.I.R. and the owner and driver ';-SS,.'< "^'•'l. !•:;/> y<-j?i ^ f S 7. 8. supported the same. But the owner of the vehicle himself had given a statement on 15.1.2008 before the police, signed by him, fhat the deceased were sitting in the offending vehicle. Thus, the introduction of the changed sfory by the claimants to get compensation cannot make the insurance company liable to pay the ainount of compensation. In view of the above discussion it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Both the appeal fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Since none appeared on behalf of the claimants to press the cross- objections, both the cross objections are dismissed. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge ./- Prss'nant Kumar Mishra Judge Thalmr