r ^} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J- Appellants Non-apDlicant No.1 Non-applicant No.2 Respondents Applicant/Cllaimant Non-applicant No.3 IW.A.C.No.1122of2007 1. State of Chhattisgarh through District Collector, Raigarh (CG) 2. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District Police Force Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Samarin Bai, W/o Ransai, aged about 35 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Tipakhol (Khairpur Panchayat) P.S. Kotararoad Tehsil Raigarh District Raigarh 2. Vikram Toppo, (M.T. Constable) Driver, Police Line Urdhana, District Raigarh (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act 1 988. Present: Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate forthe State/appellants. Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2 though served. ORAL ORDER (Passedon25.11.2008) The appeal is heard finally today. (2) The appellant is aggrieved by the award dated 27.4.2007 passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, (FTC) Raigarh (henceforth the Tribunal') in claims case No. 12/2007, whereby in a case of accidental death of one Ransai, aged about 40 years, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- to the widow of the deceased. (3) An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the widow of the deceased Ransai before the Tribunal alleging that death of Ransai, who was driving a 'Luna' at the time of accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Police Marshall Jeep bearing No.CG-13-1483 (henceforth the 'Jeep') by the respondent No.2 Vikram Toppo. (4) The Tribunal has, on appredation of evidence, held that death of Ransai had occurred due to the culpable negligence of respondent No,2 and -has awarded compensation of Rs. 1 ,67,000/-. j Priya K 8 (5) Learned Government Advocate for the State/appellant has argued that the Jeep was stationary at the time of accident and death of Ransai had occurred due to his own negligence. It was also urged that there is no material on record to show that the 'Luna' driven by Ransai had been damaged substantially due to the accident. (6) On the other hand, Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.1 argued in support ofthe impugned award. (7) Having considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. The Tribunal has, on appredation of evidence and after noting the discrepancy in the evidence ofthe respondent No.2 Vikram Toppo and B.R. Jangde, placed reliance on the testimony of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (AW-2), an eye witness and has rightly rejected the defence of the appellants that the Marshall Jeep was stationary at the time of accident. The finding of proof of culpable negligence of Respondent No.2 is based on proper appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. (8) There is not merit in this appeal, which is accordingly_dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge "^