IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL(C)NO./'^CT /2009 nj.,^;, APPELLANTS / CLAIMENTS: 1, ^•^' y^*^'- ^s*- , C9d^ .-^"(^y"^. .-• .1yl J. 3.< ^. Dhaneshwari Bai, W/o Late Kishan @ Kumbh aged about 30 years Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Kishan @ Kumbh, aged about 11 years, Pushpa Kumari D/o Late Kishan @ Kumbh, aged about 9 years, Dev Kumar, S/o Late Kishan @ Kumbh, aged about 5 years, No. 2,3,4 are minor through guardian mother Dhaaeshwari Bai, All R/o Village Khishora, Tahsil- Nawagarh, At Present residence- Baargaun, Thana & Tahsil- Pamgarh, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPELANTS : 1. Santosh Jain, S/o Rajkumar Jain, aged about 46 years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil-Distt. Raipur (C.G.) -Owner 2. Dharampal Kumar, S/o Devki Mahka, aged about 25 years, R/o Village- Machhalidih, Thana- Ghola, Distt.- Hajaribag (Jharkhand) Present residence Tatibandha, Raipur (C.G.) -Driver APPEAL UNDER SECTION-173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 1265 of2009 Appellants Dhaneshwari Bai & others Versus Respondents Santosh Jam & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Saaleer Singh, Advocate for fhe appeUaat. ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 8th day ofDecember, 2009) Per Satish K. Agnihotri J. Heard. 1. The iustaat appeal arises from fhe award dated 4,8.2009, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accideat Claims Tribunal, Janjgir in Claim Case (MACT) No. 20/2009, whereby the claim of the appeUauts was disinissed on the ground that the claimants/appeUants have faUed to estabUsh fhat fhe deceased Kishan alias Kmnbh died on accouat of fhe accident caused by the tmck bearing registration No. C.G.-07 ZC/1476. 2. The facts ia briefare that the appeUants had filed a claim case for grant of coaipensation to the tune ofRs. 16,20,000/-. Tbe case of > the appeUants is fhat on 11.3.2008 ui the night between 11 to 12 p.m. deceased Kishan alias Kiunbh was retumiag to hoine fix>m village Kharod to Tilai by his motorcycle bearibug registeation No. C.G. ll-BA/0285. At that time, the truc^i bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZC/1476, beiag driven by the respondent N6.2, iu. a rash and negligent iqanner, hit the inotorcycle of the deceased froiu the back side, as a result ofwhich deceased died oa the spot. ' Due to fhis accident fhe tyre of the truck got burst and reniained I- on the spot as stationary. The report of the iacident was lodged in police station Akaltara on 12.3.2008 by Dharmendra Das. On the other haad, fhe respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply, whereia itwas stated that the lyre ofthe truck got burst ia fhe niomiag at about 9.00 a.m., therefore it was staading as statiouary on the road side. The respondeut No.2 mformed the respondent No.l about burstiag of tbe tyre of the truck. The respondeut No. 1 went to arrange for a new tyre. The respondent No.2 as a piecaution adopted all possible raeasures i.e. put on iadicators of fhe truck, kept stones aad shrub around the truck so that aaybody comiag from both the directions inay have gafhered fhe situation that the truck was staading on the road side. After adopting alt these nieasures, the respondent No.2 also went to know about fhe arrangenient of new tyre, leavitLg the truck staadstiU. It was further stated that the deceased was ia drunken condition, he came fi-om. the back side aad Iie himsetf dashed fhe truck from the back side and received mjuries. When fhey received iufomiation that souiebody, riding a inotorcycle has dashed fhe truck froin the back side aud got iajured, they lodged a report in fhe poUce station, Akaltara. Thus, fhe respondents No. 1 and 2 are not responsible to pay fhe compensation for the negUgence on fhe part of the deceased. There is no eye witaess ofthe iacident. The respondents No. l aad 2 have produced Head Constable Malikrani Taadaa as defence witaess, who has stated that the Crime No. 72/08 was registered on the iafomiation of Dhanaendra Das fhat soine unkaown person died. The crux of the iitformatioii was that fhe rider of fhe laotorcycle dashed to the back side of fhe stationaiy truck, stan.diag on the Jaujgir road. The appeUants have failed to establish that fhe atleged accident was caused due to rash aad negUgent driving ofthe driver ofthe truck, as the truckwas static. In fhe autopsy fhe doctor has fouud alcoholic substaace in fhe stomach offhe deceased. Haviag heard learued counsel appearuig for the parties and haviag perused the pleadiugs aad origmal docuinents avaUable ia the record of the Tribuiial, we are of fhe opinion that fhe findiags recorded by the Tribunal aad the impugned award are unexceptionable aad do not sufFer froni aiiy irregularily and iUegaMty. The Tribunal has properly considered all fhe evidences aad has coine to just conclusion. For the reasons afore-stated, we are ofthe view that the appeUaats have iniserably failed to raise aay such ground which may lead to iaterference wifh fhe impugned award aad as such, the appeal is disiuissed. -—___ Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Thakur