IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL CC) N0.<1^4 OF 2010 OivisjonBe^ APPELLANTS ^••\^ ^"^i ... )':..w >• Smt. Asha Tiwari, Widow of Yogeshdatt Tiwari, aged about 30 years; Abhijeet Tiwari, Son of late Yogeshdatt Tiwari, aged about 05 years; 3,, Manodatt Tiwari, Son of Hublal Tiwari, aged about 58 years, / ^4. Smt. Indravati Tiwari, Wife of Manoddat Tiwari, aged about 56 years, Appellant No. 2 is minor through his next friend/natural guardian Appellant No. 1 Smt. Asha Tiwari, Widow of Yogeshdatt Tiwari, All are Resident of 221/19 Smriti Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS s^ Birendra Kumar Panariya, Son of Lumandas Panariya, aged about 28 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Makeshwar Ward Dhamtari, DistrJctDhamtari (C.G.) 2. Smt. Anjana Singh, Wife of Rajmangal Singh, Occupation /—) (3 registered owner of Indica Car, R/o Samata Colony, Raipur, At Present R/o Police Line, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) \-,3. The New India« Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, Division Office Near Project Automobile, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 16,50,000/- Amount awarded by thelearned Tribunal : Claim Dlsmissed Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal : Rs. 16,50,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HI^H COURT OF CHHATTISe^H AT BILASPUR &IVISION 8ENCH: HON'BUE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI d HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE /(6ARWAL. JJ. AoocUant Resoondents M.A.fcl No.784/2010 Smt. Asha Tiwwi & others Vs Birendra Kumar Panariya A others Present: AAr. <4ditya Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. [r. D. ©upta,Advocafe for respondent No.3. oftbER roran (30th Nowinter, 2010) I.M. QucMusi. J: 1. Heard on I.A. No.l, application for condonation of delay as the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of ei9ht days. 2. For the reasons assigned in the applicatjon, the same is allowed and the delay in preferrjng the appeal is condoned. 3. The appellants/claimctnts have filed this misceManeous appeal under Sed-ion 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act-, 1988 oQainst the impu9ned award dated 10.03.2010 passed bythe learned Additional Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C&) (for brevity ^he tribunaf) in Claim Case No.01/2010 dismjssing the cldm petition of the claimants. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 04.02.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased Yogesh Dutt Tiwarj was going on his motorcycle to his notive place Bhilai from Kurud. When he reached near ftaipur-Dhamtari road, a car bearing registrcri-ion number CG04-A-0322, driven rashly and negligently by the non-applicant No.l-driver, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which he sustdned grievous injuries on his head and chestand he died instantaneously. The claimants filed claim petition seekin9 compensation to the tune of fts.16,50,000/- roainjy on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the onfy earning member in the foimily, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. •i? .^'./:' ^ ^, T'% . :-ms% j ^ ^i \.^^./ ^ ..^^' 5. Non-<ipplicants Np.1 has been prpoeedecl ex-par^e. Non-applicant IMo.2 & 3 hflwe fited their written stdtement <and denjed 1+»claim of the claimcnt on various grounds. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal hfl»frownedfl®many as foyr issues and after hearjng 'Hie part-jess ui the matter has dismissed the ctaim petition on the ground -Hiat the ckiimants have failed to prove Ihat the incident has been occurred due to radi and negligwrt driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and furtiier the ctaimants have ali»not b^n able to , .estd>lish the income of the deceased. 7. We have heard leamed coundal for l+ie parl-jes at tenglh and perused 'the records of the tribunal as ajso •the findjngs givwi in Ihe impugnecl flnwoa'd. 8. From perusoil of -Hie records itjs evident 1+iat 1tw first inforroatJon report- of the accident has be^ lodgecl flagainst the imknown yehicle wid later pn, on the basis of stataments of wilnesses rewrded by 1iie police under Section 1 161 Cr.P.C. the number of Tata Indica car has been mentjoned. However, 1+ie said two persons have not been examined by the chjraants in order to prow the fact of accident. Fiirther, statements of those witnesses, which were recorded after a lapse of li- mon'His from the date of occident, are not admissible in the eye of bw. Thus, the claiins tribuiaf h<»s not conitnitted any illegality or infjrmit/ in rejecting the claim of Kie claimants. 9. In 1+<e reailt, the oppeal has no substance, 'the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No orderas to costs. ftoshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge