r\ c^- IN SHjB HIQH e©t®T©? JUDISATTOB AT BZIASP^GR Mise.Appeal ito. ^,^1 ©f2003^^J!^i]i| ( Meroorandura @f Misc.Appaal ^a 173 @f M.v.Ast ) '^ /. APPBLIANirs R^^S®5%S N©•1an<3 2. ^" AESP©»S)B /'©Eifi » l< ^-" ;• Iax?Bi Marayam s/©Smide3Er Satnami^ aged 33 years^ r/@ Village ©tebaia<3h^P»S»and Tflhsil Bal©daBa2ar,lilstt aaipm" (©©)• (Bciver @f Tra©t©r II@«H.©»T. 9S38 ). Siaader sataaiai S/@ easiya Sataami, aged aiaoiate 67 years K/@ Villa@®©te®ban<ah,P«S« Baloda Bazar, ©istricfe Baipur (©3). (©wm«r®fI'rac'tez- N®.K@T 9538 )• Versus »&• laxsii Satiaami^ aged atoufe S years, B/@ shsi Hira'as Satnaraiii miiior^ threugh its aatiaral gxaardian aad aexfe friead Hira ©asSataami aged 37 years g^@ MallM Sat®ami,~resideat»f Villag®Otebandh, E>»S« aad fttih. Bal@<3a Bazas^ ©istrietBaipwr(©@)< M»I©RANBm©FMISC.AP&EAL WDBR SBeTI©N173 OB* MOT@R vsss.eLEs-Aefs ..y OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIE-ASPUR MISC. APPEAL.NO, 981 OF 2003 : Laxml Narayan & another. Versus Ku. Laxml Satnami. N0.1 & 2 ^ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE ACT. 1988 iSjnale Bench: Hon'bie Nr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.'l Shri Bharat Rajput. counseS forthe'appeltants. Shri Deepak Jaln, counsel for the respondent. (Passed on 22na day of February, 2010) Feellng aggrieved and di'ssatlsfied with the award dated 27- 08-2003 by Second Addltionai Motor Accident Cialrns Tribunal, Baioda Bazar, District Ralpur (for short 'the Tribunaf) in Clairn Case No.96/2001, the instant appea! has been preferred by the appeliants/Non-appiicsnts No,1 & 2, in which an amount of Rs.23,000/- has been awarded in favour of the ciaimant/respondent for the jnjuries sustained by her in the acddent dated 06-12-1999. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: On 06-12-1999, the respondent Ku. Laxmi who Is a minor chiid aged about 3 years met with an accident with Tractor bearing registratlon No. MOT - 9538 and as a resuft of' which she sustained muitiple Injuries. 3. The respondent fiied claim petition under Section 136 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') clalmjns Rs.78,000/- as compensatlon for the injuriss sustained by her in the acddent. \ ~~ •^ 4. The appeiiants hereln have filed their written statement jn the case and pieaded that in the sald accident, there vvas no negiigence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and the respondent felled on her own and sustained the Injuries in the sald accldent. 5. The iearned Tribunal on ciose scrutiny of the evJdence ied, material placed and submissions made, held appellant No.2 responsible for the said accident and awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- as compensation to the respondent for the injuries sustalned by her In the sajd accident. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the F.i.R. was deiayed by two months; the matter was not disciosed to the treating doctor H.N. Saheta, and therefore, the learned Tribunai has erred in awardlng compensation in favour of the respondent. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent wouid submlt that the learned Tribunal, based on appreciation of evldence recorded jn the case, has awarded the amount of compensation to the respondent and the same deserves to be upheld. 8. ! have heard learned counsei for the parties, perused the av^ard impugned and the record of the Tnbunal. 9. The appeijants in their, written statement have not specificai!y denied the involvement of the tractor in the accident and have rajsed a plea that in fact the accident did not occur due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the tractor. 10. The appellant/respondent Laxmi Narayan in para 5 of his statement has stated that based on compromise, the treatment ot' Ku. Laxmi has been done by him; he has further statsd in his statement that when the village peopje have said that the accident was occurred with your tractor, then he has taken responsibiJlty of respondent's treatment; N.A. No.2- Lakh/w S/o Ramadhar, the .^ Kvr wltness examined by the appellants has stated jn his statement that he has Jearnt that due to dash by tractor the respondent has sustained Injuries. In cross-examination in para 3, he has categorica!ly admltted that the respondent sustained injuries by the tractor whjch was belng driven by the driver rashiy and negllgentjy and In the said accident, the leg ofthe respondent was crushed. 11. in the llght of the statements of Laxmi Narayan and N.A. No.2 Lakhan, it Is crystal ciear that the said accident occurred due to rash and negljgent driving of the driver of the tractor. In vsew of above, the delay in fjling F.1.R. is of no consequence. 12. No other points have been raised. 13. In vlew of above, l do not find any substance jn the appeal filed by the appeliant. Therefore, the appea! being devoid of substance is ?iable to be and Is hereby dismjssed. i i 1 Sd/- 1 N. K. Agarwal Judge