INijIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH. AT BILASPUR IN THE MATTER OF MISC. APPEAL N0. OF 2004 CHHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RAIPUR (THROUGH TRANSPORT CELL) NOW THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GHARI CHOWK, RAIPUR (C.G.) APPELLANT vs. ^- ^.<>2/ 3. 4. 5. KHEDIN BAI WIDOW OF BUTHUN SEN, AGED ABMOUT 46 YEARS, ARUN KUMAR, S/o. BUTHUN SEN BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & POST DAMAKHEDA, DISTT RAIPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE & POST VEERGAON, RAIPUR, TAHSIL & DISTT. RAIPUR (C.G.) FIRST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR(C.G.) BHAUDAS, S/o. TULSIDAS BORKER, C/o. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION D1STRICT RAIPUR DRIVER OF BUS No.MPO? F-0334 M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION, BHOPAL (M.P) (DISSOLVED ON 31.12.2002 BY NOTIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NUMBER S0.1365(E) DATED 26.12.2002 AND LIABILITIES TRANSFERED TO THE SUCCESSORSTATES OF M.P. & C.G. BY NOTIFICATION OF UNION OF INDIA DATED 27.12.2002). HENCE THE FOLLOWING NECESSARY ^' .-.•^^ ^°\^' ^. ^•^" ig^ -y' ,'<>•' y. ^' if: UtsflKLti!r-i(d»rii^ © ^ 5-A 9 5-B ^5-C RESPODENTS IN LIEU OF MPSRTC. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF TRANSPORT DKS. BHAVAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPT OFTRANSPORT VALLABH BHAVAN, BHOPAL (M.P) UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI RESPONDENTS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 73 <OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 —^"Lhy_shrLAnila 1C-78 *11*1ril JSW \3-cq "qiqin«,t»-al-<1<lt»,firtl'dy yv^ ^te>.a)&/& 20 aii^wmR'fi* •BaiTsiitnriiii* 3IT^?T tRcp (>j<lijc|^) 3^iT8R^feT3II^T •BKiIcxiliiiinT^'fe'^1 •(luft^it tR aiKli siit?T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTIClB N.K, AGARWAL 7-4-2010 x Shri Pradeep Saxei|ia, Adv. for appeUant. Shri Aditya Khare, | Shri Sameer Behail Adv. for respondents No. 1 and 2. |, P.L. for the State. Shri Saxena subnfiits that the appeUant is unable to deposit the requisite a^nount in terms of proviso to sub- section l of Section 173 |of fhe Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988. In view of above, i^o option is left with this Coiirt but to dismiss this appeal for i^on-compliance of provisicm contained in proviso to sub-secti|on 1 of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The ^ppeal is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge