IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC)N@i 3^ /2010 APPELLANTS <sl. Ramchandra @ Babbu Kol, S/o Motilal e^. ^' (Driver) ,u' Kol, aged about 30 years, Cast- Kol 2. Moti Lal s/o Bharati Kol, aged about ^- ^' (Owner) , n ^•'\_}(vffi^ 62 years Cast - Kol .; '..-^I^^'.t- _ .. '^ ~ ~[ ^' ' ' '" -,^ -^* '^s11^^ Both are residents ofvillage Tarai Gao Jangi ^.^.^ ^.\'rirr ' -'" '""' i" >f;..^ ^"" RESPONDENT (Claimant) Ghoraki, Thana Gaurella, Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ^.Smt. Shyamwati wd/o Late Rammilah aged about 50 years r/o village Padawaniya Thana Gaurella Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 T ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0. 310F 2010 APPELLANTS Ramchandra another. Bablu Kol and Smt. Shvamwati CLAIMANT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACr. 1988. (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Yogehdra Chaturvedi, counset for the appellant. (Passed OR 27th day of January, 2010) This is owner and driver's appeal against the award dated 23- 07-2009 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Pendra Road in Claim Case No.18/2009 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.97,500/- has been awarded atong with interest @ 10% per annum against the appeilants. 2. The Facts briefly stated are as under: The claimanfrespondent herein filsd an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') seeking Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation on account of death of her husband Ram Milan Yadav in the motor accidsnt occurred on 28-08-2008 by tra6tor bearing registration No. C.G.10-D/0533 and Trolley No. C.G.10-D/0534. The appellants denied the involvement ofthe vehicte in the said accident. 3.- Lfearned Tribunai on a closs scrutiny of the evidence ied, materiat placed and submissions made, held that the fractor in question was involved in the accident and awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation in favour ofthe ciaimant. 4. Leamed counse! for the appeilants submits that without examining any eye wltness, the sald award has bsen passed and, therefore, the award is based on no evidence and deserves to bs set aside:. < ' ,-.. ^ ...^??"-' 5. ! have heard learned counsei appearing for the appellants, gone through the impugned award and the records. 6. The claimants examined AW-3 Rameshwar Lal who has categorically deposed that the aceident occurred on 28-08-2008 at about 5.00 P.M. in which the vehicle in question dashed the deceassd from behind resulting in his death. In cross-examination, even suggestion has ii!?t been given by the appeliants that the said accident did not occur due to the involvement of the said tractor. The Police Papers fi!ed in the case give supportto the case ofthe claimants. 7. In view of above, the contention of the appellante' counsel Is sans of substance. Learned Tribunal has not committed any iliegaiity in hoiding that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The award is based on evidence recorded in the case. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance is tiable to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judae Kw ^