CA BeilSi^y) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC) N0. t I ^b OF 2009 APPELLANT : ^^1 ^ft^CG^^ C> RESPONDENTS <^^/^c.< ^./ /^ ^y ^ ,y ^ ^•'' y'V^ ^•"^" . /- ^y / ^'^~^^^^'1 ^3. Claimed before Tribunal Dilharan Sahu, S/o Gendaram, aged about 19 years, R/o Vitlage Ghoghra, Occupation Driver, Tahsil and Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Tiku @ Tikendra, S/o Dinesh Yadav, aged about 9 years, Minor Through: guardian Dinesh Yadav, S/o Baliram Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o Ghoghra, Tahsil and Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) Mansharam, S/o Titra Baiga, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Badoura, Police Station Pandariya, Tahsil and District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) : Rs. 5,50,000/- Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs. 62,218/- Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal : Rs. 62,218/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI, UNDER ^FFTION 17^ OF THF MQTQR A VEHICLEACT. 1QR8 W^dT SI»»Sic|» ~5^T T<II^ICrl^, ^TTl^^Ko, f^<r11<H^< —...^..t..^).....^..Q..:....!.?...^..Lf.. 200 ^ ^n^r ^ra^ (^gt^^T) ^ST^T ^»T'f^ThF WT 3??^T s?»*sw 8.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwlal ¥^TOT^Rsd 3n^?T 2-03-2010 ^?prf^Pft;T'HP^f "^ fe^ ^fe^R ^T^ffW^I^T Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the a|?pellant. Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for n None for respondent No.2 theug spondent No.1. served. Smt. Chitra Shrivasteva, counseflforrespondent No.3. Heard on admission. This is driver's appeal filed agai^ ^009 passed by Add^onal Motor (F.T.C.), Bemetara, District Durg (for s^ ase No.12/2009 whereby and wt^ is.62,218/- has been awarded as co| lo.1 for the injuries sustained by him '^ t008. Facts briefly stated are as under: On 18-06-2008, respondent N ist the awarct dated 30-04- \ccident Clahns Tribunai lort 'the Tribunal') in Claim ereunder an amount of npen^tion to respondent the accldent dated 18-06- M/claimant met with an ^ccident with Tractor bearing registr^tion No. C.G. 10-A/8188 iing driven by the appellant, owned| by respondent No.2 and isured by respondent No.3 as a res|ult of which he sustained jrievous injuries. Respondent No.1 h^s preferred claim petition ^nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehic(es Aet (for short 'the Act') |ilaiming Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensaticjn for the injuries si^tained ^y him againstthe appellantas well as ('espondents No. 2 & 3. In reply to the ctaim petitton, ^pwident No.2 and the ^ppellant both have filed joint written s^atement ir»which althou®h ?IT?rfW 8?N^T^T?T^^ <f^}^TT<?—FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000. w' -HC—78 ^I^^S ^KT^i "T^r ^II^Krl^l, ^>tl1<-l^l<o, fs|<ni<H*j,< _^_ ^VA. Cc) N^- V^l % 200^ ^?T 7^W ( yi?3<si<i^) ^^ "^T f<vlioh ^T^ff 33rT^?T '^lN? '^nWHf^T^IT^T — 1-- they have not deniea me acciaeni denied the factum of rash and neglige|it driving @fthe appNlant. Learned Tribunal on a closel material placed and submissions responsible for the said accident; as^essed the compensation as Rs.62,218/- fastening the liability of well as respondent No.2 jointly respondent No.S/lnsurance Oompa compensation along with interest @ jts payment on appellant as ind severalty, exonerating ty from its liability to pay ^% per annum from the date of application till its recovery. Learned counset for the appell|int woidd submit that ses per para 9 ofthe award, jt has not been rf driving ftie said tractor with an exc^ssive speed and, itier^ore, the Tribunal has erred in holding the | said accident. 1 have heard learned counsetl the award Jmpugned and record ofth^ In the written statement filed ! respondent No.2, they have not sp^ due to turning of the tractor, the Dinesh Yadav (AW-1) has speciftcally stated ttiat the said aceident had occurred due to the n^gligence of appellant. Ram Kumar Sahu (AW-2) also had statec| the appellant fled away from the 4 accident had occurred due to rash appellant. The appellant has not ex^imined himsdf in the case to lybullliy i>adiy. ^Fft;T TTTTT^ff ^ fe^l' ipsi^K '^3tRw 377^91 specit^Hy but they have scrutir^ of th®evidenc®, made held the appellanl •oved that the appeltant was f^ellant responsibte for the for the parties and perused Tribunal. by the appsllant along with cifically denred the fact that ipptieant susfeained jnjuries. that after the said accident, pot. fas per FIR, the said and n^gltgent drivtng cf the =F XI-HC—78 '?^r ^i^icn^, ^til-(-i<i<o, [®idl-(-ili,< . (^^ C^) »<ft>. (I ^ ^, HWWt ^^(q,—-------"------7-- ^f^ '^^K (1clf^<^T) ^ 3TI^T ^T f^'lJch '^8TT/^?T^T 5t>^i^ Kw ^^iTW Trft^T W^T - 3- in view or aoove, it cannoi oe not responsible for the said accident. CM^fci<il<1 iTR^if ^f fe^ft '<P»1^1< '^'^ff^HW^T said that th6 app*Hant was No other points have been raised. In view of above, 1 do not find |iny substaace In the appeai filed by the appellant. Therefore, fie appeal being devaid of substance is liable to be and is hereb^ djsmissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge