n HIGKCQURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bleShri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.(ClNo.13420f2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Shiva Kumar Versus Sheikh Jami @ Jammu and others. ORDER For Pronouncement ofOrder \^ .11.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BII-ASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLESHRI R.L.JHANWAR.*!, Misc. ADpeal (Cl No. 1342 of 2008 Appellant : Shiva Kumar S/o Ganga Prasad Kurre, Aged about 06 years, R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Through : Ganga Prasad S/o Kailash Ram Kurre, aged about 32years, (Minor through legal guardian & father) R/o Tendubhatha, Police Station Tahsil Bilaigarh District Raipur Respondents Village Sarsiwa (C.G.) VERSUS Sheikh Jamil & Jammu S/o Sheikh Jim, Aged about 28 years, R/o & P.S. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of Tempo Trax Gama Registered BearingNo. C.G. 10A/3023) Yugal Kishore Dewangan S/o Lakhan Lal Dewangan, Aged about not known r/o Patwapara, Mungeli, Post Mungeli, Dist Bilaspur (C.g.) Owner of Tempo Trax Gama Registered Bearing No. C.G. 10A/3023) Uhited India Insurance Company Limited, Medkar Complex, Rajendra Nagar, Ware House Bilaspur (C.G.) Insurer ofTempo Trax Gama Registered Bearing No. C.G. 10A/3023) IVIEIVIO OF APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IWOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 Appearance: Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon 1^_.11.2010) This appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 11.09.2008 passed in Claim Case No.13/2007 by 2nd Additional Motor 'us» ",/lt~J1 ^.'^ 'SS^K!^ ':i.^K'^,^'^^ e:-Si '; ''t. •K-X.i? %^:'SK<sVy^s' Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) (for short "the Claims Tribunal") whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed theclaim 6f theclaimant. 2. Brieffacts, in a nutshell, arethaton 27.09.2006 When the appellant, aftereompletion of natural call, was returning towards his house, atthe same time, on way of Sarangarh - Sarsiwa, one Trax bearing No. C.G.10/A-3023, whichwas being driven by its driver - respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant, as a result of which, he received injuries. Incident was reported vide Ex.P.1 at Police Station Sarsiwaon 10.11.2006. 3. Seeking compensation of Rs.2,33.163/- on various heads, the appellant filed a claim petition. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company denied the averments made in claim petitioh. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and that the offending vehicle was being driven in breachof policyof insurance. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, rejected the claim of the claimant on the ground that the appellant/claimant has not been able to prove that accident occurred with Trax Jeep No.C.G.IOA-3023. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in reiecting theclaim petition. It is dearfrom the F.I.R. Ex.A.1, which was lodged by Ganesh Ram Kurre, who is uncle of injured, wherein the number ofoffending vehicle was mentioned as C.G. 010A- 3023 andalso the offending vehiclewas seized. Itwas further argued that charge sheet was also filed against the driver. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to haveconsidered the F.I.R. Ex.A.1, evidenceadduced by the claimant and awarded suitable compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured. The learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of A.W.1 Ganga Prasad Kurre, A.W.1 Shiva Kumar, A.W.2 Ganesh Ram Kurre and A.W.3 PyrushottamManhar. In their evidence, it has been stated by them that the colour of offending vehicle was white and its number was 2330. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have believed their evidence and should have awardedsuitable Gompensation /y" l:%~fS!& <i ''..^.^ai^a, 18 ry butthe learned Claims Tribunalhas erred in discarding their evidence, resultinginto the dismissal ofclaim petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company while supporting the impugned order argued thatthe number disclosed by the above witnesses did not tally. They have stated only 2330 which is incomplete nymber. Ganesh Ram KurreA.W.2 has deposed that he was doing some work in his house and after accident he reached the spot whereas according to other witnesses, after causing the accident, the offending vehicleran away. Therefore,it was not possible for him to note down the number of offending vehicle. He also argued that it cannot be said that whether the said offending vehicle was of white colour or not. No witness, in partjcular, the claimant, has been able tp prove as to whether the seized offending vehicle was of white colour. The claimant has also notbeen able to prove the numberofoffending vehicle. After appreciating the evidence led before it, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length andhave perused the record ofthe Claims Tribunal and impugned award. 8. So far as the evidence of A.W.1 Shiva Kumar is concerned, it is clear from his evidence that he was 6 years age at the time of accident. According to him, he went to attend natural call and when he was returning, one commandojeep having white colourdashedhim. He further deposed that due to such dash he got injuries on his left leg. But he didnot stateanything about the number of offending vehicle in his evidence. It is clear from the evidence of Ganesh Ram Kurre A.W.2 that he is illiterate person and injured is hisson. He stated that one Tempo Trax havingwhite colourwas being plied speedily after causing aecident to hisson and he saw thenumber ofthat offending vehicle as 2330. This Courtfailed to understand that when thiswitness himself disclosedthat he is illiterate person, in sucha condition, how this witness could state the numberof offending vehicle in his deposition. According to paragraph 8 of his deposition, after causingaccident, the said offending vehicle ran away and hecould not see the riumber of that vehicle. He further deposed that other peoplesaw the number ofthat vehicle. Even if it is held that the number of offending vehicle was 2330, as stated by Ganesh Ram A.W.2, ••^ up but the said offending vehicle belonged to which State has not come in his evidence. Therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. 9. A.W.3 Purushottam Manharand A.W.4 Gajanand have not stated anything about the complete number bf theoffending vehicle. According to A.W.3 Gajanand, he was eye witness, who hasalso deposed only number of offending vehicle as 3023 but was unable to see any other humber nor was able tostate as to which State the offending vehicle belpngs.In his Gross-examination by theCourt, he disclosedthe number of that offending vehicle only after he saw that number and has written in plain per and also on the floor but h'e has not produced that document in which he has written that number of offending vehicle. It is not possible for any person, who immediately note down the numberof offending vehicle after causing the accidentand run away. 10. Having thus discussed the above, it is clear that none of witnesses produced by the claimant have beeh able to correctly disclose the number ofoffending vehicle. It is also clearfrom the record that incident occurred on 27.09.2006 and the F.I.R. Ex.A.1 was lodged on 10.11.2006i.e. after lapse of more than 40 days. It is also to be notedthat when A.W.2 Ganesh Ram mentioned the correct number of offending vehicle as C.G.10/A-3023 in F.I.R., then the same witness in his evidence has stated the number of offending vehicle as 2330. None ofthe witnesses have stated as to how the number of offending vehicle as C.G.10/A-3923 has been mentioned in F.1.R. Thus, theclaimant has not been able to prove thataccidenttookplacewith C.G.10/A-3023. The leamed Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of appellant. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are purely findings based on reliable, clinching and cogent evidence available on record. 11. On close scrufiny ofthe evidence, l do not find any illegality or infirmity inthe impugned awardwarrantinginterference bythis Court. 12. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Noorder as to costs. 3udSe