HT! AT {Ownert 'f Arun Agriculture Devpuri, 'hrough its Partner Arun Agrawa! S/o Late Shri R.K. Agravx'al, aged about 40 years, R/o Devpuri, Tahsil & District Raipur (C..G.) (Claimantl fDriver) (insursr^ 1. Harendra 1'^imar S/o Jhumuk Lal Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Bohara, Police Station & Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Girdhari Lal Sahu S/o Shri Rikhiram Sahu, aged about 33 years, R/o Village & Post Kulia. Tahsil Gurur, District Dura (C.G.'j 3. The F- india Insurance Company Limited, Branch Kachahari Chowk, Raipur Tahsll S Distt. Ralpur (C.G.) 173 OF THE .^n^.s iiaiius Ms. Sunita Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath GuDta, counsei n (Passedon l7l''June,2011) 1. This is Owner's appea!'against the award dated 24.06.2006 passed in Claim Case No. 85/2001 by Additional Moter Accident Claii airns Tribunal (Tor short 'the Tribunal'), Baiod Djstrict Durg (C.G.) vv'nereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 44,835/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing .if,fss^ y/"^ •*•»., K3"S^^ of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, in favour of the clairnant/respondent No. 1 and against the ov»'ner and driver of the offendina vehicle 2. Learned Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it he!d that claimant Harendra Kumar sustained injuries in the motor accident on 03.04.2001 due to rash and neg'igent driving of the offending vehide Bajaj Caliber No. M.P. 62/2169. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle both are liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 3. Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently .-!!. kifi ^^^^ AS^1-^ .'^^^^ 1 lp-1^l 1^'^? ' ^- rf~^^> /!?ry-yf^r<^ 1S'*<t J^V^>^i^^?y^ ^ j^\^^'~>)f^if*^^r?^ f;? ds uu^u u idi. 'irs^ ^ i SUUi^l Hci^ ^l I^U jr^ ciV'^ctiuHiy yxu&^isssiy^ ;'"•;"">mrii'z'srs^ssfirtn rsf !?% AA P'^^/- Si?~i's5nsf thft ^sin;p?ffi1l'3rsf ^sri^ 'i:?i/i4'h-^i-:'" L'^-i^ i ipiE;i iis<suu;t i ui i'xte.'-?'*( Os^^j/- ^iycsu isi u iss ci.^y^'aiCis 11 c^nu vv'iu ^vUi, appreciating the fact that It was a fauit of injured claimant and driver of Scooter Vespa and at the best it can oniy be said that it is a csse of contributory negiigence of both the parties. She also argued that the order of the learned Tribunal is illegal, therefore, it is liabia to be set aside. 4. On the other 'nand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, iearned counsel for respondent No. 3/ The Ne'A' India Insurance Cornpany Limited supported t'ne award. 5. ! have heard the ieamed counse! for the appellant, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 6. Now 1 shaii examine as to whether the liability fastened on the •^ <^&>*>^'t1!/ i?^4t ^1.^ ^'^/ai -I- ft'T ^ r iy^tf"as ii"1 ^i i<"kT '"sv^^? v\v^,y\^Qy sy^ ^'^/"\ ^'T'I^^^C^ -^?^ dppKisc^ui uy i.i i^ i liuuiiai iis jusi aisu piupei 1^1 IUK ics^ite (31? ^irf^i sm%t?^r!ft;p% nf fhp nrp'?;snt ^/ii 4-T'iu3 ! i il3l0.i I^^?0 Vi i.i iC ki'1 C?OS;i i{. ^/QO^?. ^'M. -E.SSS-- J^ -»/y 3 • J'-,':\ 7. Respondent No.1 Harendra Kumar/applicant was examined before the Tribunal in support of his claim. He has categorically stated in his evidence that on the date of accident he was corninf to Gurur from Saiod by Scooter which was driven by Jai Bharat Puri. Gird'nari Lai Sahu, driving t'ne offending vehicle Bajaj Caiiber ras'nly and negiigently dashed the scooter drlven by Js iharat Puri, as a result of which he sustained Injury and got ractured in his ieg. This fact has been corroborated by the fra evidence of Dr. Iqbal Parvez (AW/2) who has speclficaily stat( ihat on 04.04.2001 applicant H.arendra Kumar was taken to the hospitai for treatrnent and was examined by him. After X-ray, he found fracture in bone of ieft thigh and toe. He has also deposed that the applicant Harendar Kumar spent Rs.12,000/- during the treatment and also spent the same amount towards medicina. Jai Bharat Puri (AW/3) has also supported the version of Harendar Kuamr (AVV/1). Rajendra Raswaiya (NA/1) (for non- appllcant No.3) and Shalaj Kumar Agrawal (NA/3) (for non- appiicant No.2) were examined but t'ney have not rebutted the evidence produced by the applicant witness. ' .^ . 8. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record and from perusal ofthe documents produced byt'ne applicant, 1 am of the considered opinion that after considering aii the aspects of the matter, the Tribunai 'nas rightly passed the awara' and no interference is called for in this appeal. Consequently, the appea! being devoid of merit is liabSe to be dismissed and is hereby disrnissed__-—- RangnathC^ndraka'- <ya1