tf/ / s ^ IN THE HIGH C^URT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL N0. - w OF 2006 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT -^ON APPLICANT « Ram Kumar Ratre S/o Boharik Ratre, R/o- Village- Bhatgaon, Post- Mana Camp, Raipur, Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^AIMANTS Smt. Bhagwantin Bai W/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu, ged about 27 years l^- Ku. Pumima D/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu, aged about 5 years. ^- 5. ^ Rupesh Kumar S/o Late Mohan LalSahu aged about 3 years 4^. Ku, Madhuri D/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu, aged about 1 years Smt. Parcho Bai W/o Late Kartik Ram Sahu aged about 55 years [Appellant No. 2 to 4 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother the appellant No. 1 Smt. Bhagwantin Bai] All R/o- Abhanpur , District - Raipur (C.G.) NON APPLICANTS /^ON-CLAIMANTS ^'L HemantVerma S/o Shiv Kumar Verma R/o- New Suryodya Nagar, Pachpedhi Naka, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Kailash Pradhan S/o Jaidhar Pradhan , R/o- Kalinagar, Mahaveer Chowk, Lalpur, Police Station - Tikrapara, Raipur , District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. ^ M/s. Jamila Auto Care/Deal, Near Police Line Petrol Pump, Tikrapara, Raipur , District- Raipur (C.G.) .^" Appeal Value at - Rs. 2,32,563/- MEMOPANnTTM OF APPEAT TTNDER SECTTON 173 OF THE MOTOR VFHTFLES ACT. 1988 te._._-_.-.—„_-— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSj& HON'BLE MR. (3. MiNHAJUODlN. JJ. AppeUant/ Non-Applicant Respondents Claimants M.A.No.939of200e Ram Kumar Ratre Vs Smt. Bhagwantin Bai and others Present: Mr. Vipin Tiwari, iAdvocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel forthe appellant. ERtOrall (24tnAugust,2011) Perl.M.QuddusfcJ; 1. This appeal has been filed under Sectjon 173 ofthe Motor Vehfoles Act, 1988 against the award of the 9th Additional ^4otor Accklent Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) dated 31st January, 2006 passed in Claim Case No.27/05, fastening the liability to pay compensation on the driver and owner ofthe offending vehtele, jointly and severaHy. 2. Since the mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been made, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge k/