HIOH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH: BILA8PUR CORAM: HOIPBLB 8HRI 8.R. MAYAK, CJ & V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. MISCELLAMEOUS APPEAL (Cl N0. 295/2006 APPELLANT The Oriental Insiirance Co.Ltd., Branch OfiBce No.2, Shri Maliavii' Gaushala Pai'Ksai', Modattapara Raipur (CG). Veisus RESPONDENTS 1. Sint. Aard Shukla, w/o. Late Rajesh Shukla, about 33 years, (K-'cupatiou advocatc, r/u. ueai- tjo Bcmibadi Ohai^hoda, Thana & Tahsil Qhai^hoda, Dist. Raigarh (CG). 2. Gurudayal Sharma, S/o. Late B.L. Sharma, occupation vehicle owner, r/o. quarter No.492, near to Shitala Mandir, New Colouy Changoi-a Bhatha, Raipur (CG). 3. Siat. Krishua Shukla, w/o. Late Chandrashekhar Shiikla, age about 65 yeai's, r/o. ucai' lo hemibadi Otiai^hoda, T'hana & Tahsjl Ghai^hoda, Dist Ra^ai'h (CG). PRESENT: Shri Sudtur Agarwal, counsel for the appeUant. ORfiJL OR D E R (Dated 29/11/2006) The foUowiag oral order of fhe Court was passed by Vijay Kuiaar Shrivastava, J. This appeal under Section 173 of fhe Motor Vehk-les Act, 1988 (henceforfh, "fhe Acf) has been filed E^ainst the ^ward dated l/\ 1071'3,006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribnnnl (henceforfh 'Tribunal"), Ra^arh, m Claim Case No. 28/200^1 whereby award of Rs.7,82,000/- (Rupees sevea lakhs and e^hty- two tbousand) has been passed agaiast respondent No.2 and appeUant Respondent No. l Smt. Aarti Shiikla, wife of Rajesh Shiifela filed an applfcation under Section 166 of tfae Act, for clnimmg conipensation of Rs.^'1,00,000/- i'nfer aJia on the ground tfaat her husbaad Rajesh Shukla who was goiag wifh Heinaat Shufcla fi'om. Dharamjaigarh to Ghai^hora on 29/05/200'1 by Motor Cycle No. CG-01/3757 rn.et with aa accident on way, sustained severe injuries and feU into Coma. He was takeu to Primary Healfh Ceatre, Ghai^hora, District Hospital, Raigarh aad thereafter to Life Birth Hospital, Raipur, where he remauied unconscious aud was under treatment tffl his deatfa ie., up to 18/06/200/1. The fateful Motor Cycle No. CG-04/3757 was insured with the appeUaat, owner of fhe vehicle is respondent No.2 - Gurudayal Sharma. Sint Aarti Shukla is aa Advocate by profession and her husband Rajesh Shulda (siace deceased) was also an Advocate by professioa. Monthly incoine of Rajesh Shukla was Rs.1-0,000/- and at ftie tiine of accident he was aged around 36 years. Respondent No.2 did not fife aay written stateinent. Respondent No. 3 reinamed ex parte. AppeDaat denied the claua of respondcDt No. 1 aad pleaded that without having a valid driving license the vehicte was driwen by the driver. Learued Tribunal after apprecjating fhe evidence on record heM fhat Rajesh Shukla met with an accident on 29/05/200'i wtulc usiag Veiiicle Motor Cycle No. CG-0^1/3757 and as result of accident he died on 18/06/200/1. Leamed Tribunal further held that appeMant feuled to prove that the vehicle was driven in contravention of poUcy conditions. Leamed TTibuaal after assessing the coi&pensation passed tfae award. Learaed counsel for fhe appeBaat contended that respondeat No. 1 lailed to prove fhat Rajesh Shulda died as a result of injuries caused to him in accident on 29/05/200^). His sole einphasis is tliat Rajesh Shulda vvas adiuitted ia hospital for a long tiiae aad after 21 days fi'oiu fhe date of accident he died. Sint, Aarti Shutela in her evidence has stated that her husband Rajesh Shukia rn.et with an accident while drivmg Motor Cycle No. CG-0^/3757, sustained various injuries and was taken to Primary Health Centre, Gharghora, on their advice he was taken to District Hospital, Raigarh aad thereafter he was shifted to Life Birth Hospital, Raipi.iT, for treatment where he lemauied uiider Conxa tffl his deafh i.e., up to 18/06/200/i. Not a single question has been asked in her cross examination to chaUenge that Rajesh Shukla had iiot died as a result of accideat. Evea to rebut her testiiaony, no evidence has been adduced by fhe appeBant. Thereforc, from. unchaUenged testiiaony of Aarti Shu]da,-it was proved that Rajesh Shukla died as a result ofuijuries sustained by him ia accideat aad leacaed Tnbunal did not conunit any error while holdiag so. Further contention pfthe leamed coitnsel for the appcUant is that leamsd Tribunal erred in acceptmg monthly iacoine of deccased aad awarding coiupensation towards loss of incoiae on h^her side. It is not in dispute that deceased Rajesh Shukla was Advocate by profession. Siat. Aarti Shukia in her evidepee stoted 1 that inonfhfy incoiae ofher husbaad was Rs.10,000/- per nionth. To rebut her stateiaent, no evideace has been led by the appellant, even fhen, the Tribtinal instead of accepting his inonfhly iacoine Rs.10,000/-, accepted only Rs.6,000/- per month. Evidently, leamed TTibuiial did not assess loss ofeaming on h^her side. FiiiaUy leamed counsel for the appellant contended fhat deceased huaself was negligent. Neifher he raised such a pfea in his written stateiuent nor, otherwise, rEiised such a plea before the Tribunal, therefore, in absence of such a plea before tfae Tribunal, he is refi-aiued fi'om raisiug such a plea before the appeUate Court. No ofher poiats have been raised by fhe appeBaat in the course ofai^uments. In fhe result, fhe appeal being devoid of inerit is liable to be disnussed sumiaarily and is accordingly disiiussed in Srmne. No cosls. .-•^(_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Raiti