.<^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No.743 of 2008 APPELLANTS/: (CIaimants before the tribunal) 1. 2. Virendra Kumar S/o Baiiram, Satnami, aged about 23 years. Caste RESPONDENTS/: (Non-applicants before the tribunal) 2. 3. 4. Smt. Anjora Bai, W/o Baiiram, Caste Satnami, aged about 46 years, (DIED AND DELETED) Both R/o Village Singhanpur, P.S. & Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) at present resident of Banglapara Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Surendra Mahant, S/o Shri K.S. Mahant, Caste Panika, Occupation Driver (Truck Driver) R/o Village Pakargaon, Tahsii & P.S. Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Mahavir Prasad Agrawal S/o Jagat Ram Agrawal, Ambikapur Road Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Truck Owner) (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Rathram S/o Chediram Satnami, Tahsil & P.S. Kasdol. Djstt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner ofthe Bus and Driver) {Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act} Present: Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for the appeliant. Mr. Abhishek Sinha with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma& Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ ORALORDER (10-2-2010) 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the award dated 29-2-2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh (for short 'the RT Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.15/2006, whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismSssed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. Award is impugned on the ground that deceased appeHant No.2 Smt. Anjora Bai, who died on 29-1-2009, was step daughter of deceased Sukhin Bai and she was entitled for compensation on account of the death of Sukhin Bai in a motor acddent, but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation and thereby committed illegality. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposat of thjsappeal, accordlng to the claim petition, are that deceased appellant No.2 Smt. Anjora Bai was step daughter of Sukhin Bai (since deceased), who died on account of a motor accident on 19-6-2004. The alleged offending truck No.CG-14/ ZC-0257 was being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and during the period of accident it was insured with respondent No.3. The appellant along w'rth his mother (Smt. Anjora Bai - since deceased) has filed cliam petition under Section 166 of the Motor VehidesAct, 1988. The allegation made in the petition was denied by the respondents. Issues were framed and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants/claimants are not legal representatives of deceased Sukhin Bai. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the appeal and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that deceased Anjora Bai wasstep daughter of deceased Sukhin Bai and was entitled for compensation on account of the death of Sukhin Bai in a motor accident, but the Clajms Tribunal has illegally rejected the ctaim. ;^. %^./ "^s^ © 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the appeal and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adducedon behalf ofthe parties. 8. At the outset, the address given by the appellants and the address of deceased Sukhin Bai show that they are not residing in same village under one roof, but they are residing at different villages within different Tahsils, the only similarity is that name of village Singhanpur is same. 9. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that they were dependent upon Sukhin Bai, even they have not adduced any evidence to show that as to when the real mother of deceased appellant No.2 died and when father of deceased appellant No.2 married with Sukhin Bai. This is a claim petition and the claimants are required to prove their entitlement. In absence of any such proof the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimants. 10.0n close scrutiny, we do not find any illegality in dismissing the claim petition. The appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge •®