IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^iVteion Beneh APPELLANT (CLAIMANT) RESPONDENTS ^b^^" TyyXA ^^" /4' M.A.(C.) No..5:£t<....../2011 Nandlal Verma, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Itwari Verma Caste Lodhi, R/o ViUage Nandeli, Post Deori, PoUce Station & Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1) Loman Thakur, aged about 45 years, S/o Bhav Singh Thakur, through Disfarict Forest Divisional Officer, (D.F.O.) Durg, Forest Campus Rajendra Park chowk, Durg, PoUce Station Mohan Nagar, TahsU & District Durg (C.G.) (Driver of AUeged Vehicle bearing Q Registration No. C.G.02/0433) £>1S4-^C^: 2) ^ Forest J6ivision^) Officer (D.F.O.) Durg, Forest Area Officer, (D.F.O.) Durg, Address Forest Campus Rajendra Park chowk, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) (Owner of Alleged Vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G.02/0433) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 7-^ ^i a-.....^sm^ 1 J/ HIGH CGBRT GF C3 APFBLLAHT/ M.A.i'a HO. 754 OF 2011 Naijidlal. Vei'ma ¥ersiis Lomaii Thalnu- aiid aiiother. Jf APFEAL 173 OF ACT, mvision BesichiHon'ble SIiri I.M. QuddusL& Hos?ble q. MisslsaluddlB, JJ. Presents Shi-1 C.R. SalTu, counsel for the appellaiit. Shri K.K. Dewangan, counsel for respondent No. 1. Sl-u-'I Viiiay Haiit, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2. OHAL fpas^ed osi l'2'at day ofOctober, 20111 Per I.M. Guddusi, J< Heard ou I.A. No.Ol, applicatlon fbr oondoiiation ofdelay in filing tl-ie appeal. 2. As per offlce report, there Is 658 days' delay In filiiig flie appeal. No satlsfactory explaiiation has been given by tlie appellaat for tlie cause of delay m illlng the. appeal. Therefore, the applicatlon is dismissed. 3. Thls is not a case of permanent disability but tlils .is a case • of oiily sorne injui'ies sustaiiied by tlie appellaiit/clamiaiit. 4. Learned counsel for flie parties ai'e heard. 5. Tlils appeal has been filcd by tfae appeUaiit/elaiiiiaiit agauiLSt tlie iiiipugned awai-d dated 07-05-2009 passed by tiie XII Additional Motor- Accldent Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dm'g in Clahu Case No. 26/2008 whereby aiid whereunder- tlie Claims Tiibunal has dismissed tlie clalm petition of tlie appeUant. 6. Brief facts of the case as per version of tiie appellaiit/claiiuant ai'e that nou-applicaiit No. 1 was driver aiid non-appUcaiit No. 2 was owiier of the offendmg vehicle. On 03-06-2008 at 7-00 p.m., tlie appeltaiit/claliiiaiit was going from Dhaiiidlia to NaiideU on his motorcycle Rajdoot beai-mg registration No. C.G. 07-ZN/8515. At that time, neai- Haiyaria badi Dhamdha, tiie Truck beai'ing registi'atlon No. C.G. 02/0433 which was belag driven by tiie driver/respondent No. 1, iii a rash and negligent maiiiier cai'ne behliid lilm and daslied the appellaiit as a result of wliich tlie appeUaiit sustauied grievous injm'ies m flie accident by wliich he had become permaiiently disabled. He was taken to Government Hospital, Dliaindlia aiid tl-ier-eafter he was adniitted in Sector-9 Hospital, BliUai. Report of tiie incident was glven m tl-ie pollce station, Dhanidlia against tlie uon-applicaiit No. 1/driver. 7. The appellaiit/claimaiit had ffied a claim petition iiiider Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for sliort Uie Act^ before tiie Claitiis Tribmial claiiiimg aii aaiouiit of Rs.4,14,000/- for ti-ie injuries sustained by hlm. 8. The Claims Tribiinial 011 a close scrutiiiy of tlie evidence led, material placed aiid submissions made by the parties, has dismissed tlie clam.i petition. 9. We have perused the spot map prepai'ed by tiie Investlgatiiig Officer aiid fomid that tiie claimaiit's witiiess has slgaed on it, wliich shows that the clalTiiaiit was on liis wroug side i.e. he was driviiig lils motorcycle at the exti'emely right slde aiid the offeudiiig vehicle was coniiug from opposite dii-ection. He ti-ied to save tlie clamiant i.e. motofcycllst but he got injuries froiTi tiie rai'e wheel of fhe truck. There is no uegligence on flie pai~t of tlie truck driver rather tlie claliiiant hlmself was negllgent ui driving Uie motoreycle towai'ds his wrong slde. It has also been falsely stated that fhe ti'uck collided witii the motorcycle fr-om flie rare side aiid dashed tiie motorcycle fi'om bel-ilnd. The claliiiaiit hinisetf has coiiceded that he was drivuig tlie motorcycle on liis wrong side. 10. Iu view of tlie above mentioned facts aiid cii'cumstances of the case, no uiterference is requli'ed iii fhe impugned award. The Claims Tribuiial has riglitly rejected the clalm petijLion oftiie appellaiit/claimaiit. 11. Iii tlie result^ the appeal falls and vls disnMssed on tlie ground of delay as well as cn merits also. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kvr