'u''^''u''u'j''i^~j"u'L^^'<j''L''~i^'^j-J L/'J'0\j'iy*J u''u''^'\-/'C /v;-^-^.^.^^'^' ^/ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M.A.(C) \\\ /2009 APPELLANT 'Claimant /?^ ...•••""." c,- -"'".^rt .-•y, L.^1^ ^^ Chhotu @ Beersingh Patle S/o Panch Ram Patle, Aged about 22 Years, R/o SotnQmipQrQ, near Vijay Complex, Thana Chhowani Tohsil ond District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS rpo RKTPONDENTS 7~ NON-CLAIMANTS SudhirJaiswal @ Kallu, Occupation Contractor, R/o Jaiswal Aata Chakki, near Vijay Complex, ThonQ ChhQwoni, Tahsil ond District Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sheetal Jaiswal W/o Sudhir JoiswQl, Occupotion Owner of the vehicle, R/o Jaiswal Aata Chakki, near Vijay Complex, Thana ChhQwoni, Tohsil ond District Durg (C.G.) ^ United India Insurance Company Limited, Through : DivisionQl Manager, Address : Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicleAct 1994 Wt_-_— J^L^L< x,--s^: \A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 111 OF 2009 APPELLNT Chhotu@ Beersingh Patie Versus RESPONDENTS Sudhir Jaiswal @ Kallu and others SINGLB BENCH:- Hon. Shii N.K. Agarwal, J PRESBNT :- Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate, for appellaiit. ORAL ORDEH (25-1-2010) 1, This is claimao.fs appeal agaiast fhe awai'd dated 23-10-2008 passed by IXtli Additional Motor Accident Cledssis Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 37/2007 whereby aad whereunder the claimant's claioi petition has been disaiissed.- 2. Facts oftlie case, ia bri.cf, are as under:- 3* Accordmg to the appellant, 011 21-9-2004, wheii fhe appellaat was sittmg with respondent no. 1 on his motorcycle bearmg registration No. CG-7/K-6186 as a piUion rider, the Biotorcycle met witii an accident due to rash and negligent driviag by the respoudent No. 1 aiid m fhat accident, fhe appeUaiit sustamed grievous injuries. He was aclmitted m Bhilai Nursing Home for treatment and thereafter m Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. On the report lodged by the appellaat, PoUce Station Amailaka, Raipiu' registered Ciime No. 290/2004 agaiast respondent No, 1 under Section 279 aad 337 ofI.P.C. 4. On these aUegations, the appellant filed a claim petition agaiast respondents clamimg Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for fhe iajunes sustaiaed by him ia the said accident. The respondents No. 1 aad 2 appeared io. fhe case aad filed fheir written statements. The respondent No. 1 has specifically denied the occurrence of said accident wifh the motorcycle in. question. Relatiouship ofemployer and employee has also been denied. Learaed Tribunal on a close scrutmy of the evidence led, inaterial placed aad subinissions m.ade by fhe parties, recorded a fmdmg that tiie appellaat / claiaiaat failed to prove iavolveinent of the said vehicle ia fhe said accident. .< "^:^ 5. Shri Aditya Khare, leamed couusel for the appellaiit would submit that leamed Tribzuial has erred ia disbeUevmg fhe FJ,R. Ex, (P-l) registered agaiast respondent No, 1 and m disbelieving the testimony of the claimaiit and thus erred m dismissiag fhe claim petition of fhe claimant, 6. I have heard leamed coiinsel for fhe appellaiit/claimaiit aiid perused the record of the Tribunal. 7* The appeUaat/clamiaiit exaaiio.ed himsetf aad one Dr. G.S. Bachhu (AW 2), Respondent No, 1 exaiiiined hiinself The respondent No. 2 examined one S.K. Lal, Assitt. Manager ofthe Insuraace Coiapaiiy. 8, The evidence adduced by fhe claimaiit would reveal that factuia of accident wifh. fhe vehicle ia question was not mtimated by hioi to poMce station immediately as the FJ.R, has been lodged on 29-10-2004; fhe claimaiit did not file aay certificate or document pertaio.io.g to liis toreatraent iii Bhilai Nursmg Home aiid m Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. No explaaation has been given by him for lodging report after a period of more thaii oue month despite the fact tliat he was discharged from the hospital after 19 days of the accideut It is also not in dispiite that after iavestigation, the poUce authorities did aot fiiid coiHBiission of aiiy such offeuce by iiivolveiaent of fhe vehicle ia question aiid due to that, fhey have sent Khai^na (Ex. P-2). He did not inform to fhe police fhat his left leg bone has been fractured, As per poUce rcport Ex. P-2, tfa-e appellaiit sustaiaed simple injiiries. Even in fhe photocopies of the treatnient papers filed by the appellant, it has not been mentioued fhat he sustaiaed mjuries due to aiiy road accident nor involvenient of m.otorcycle ia question ia the saicl accident has beeu mentioned. Doctor from Bhilai Nursing Home aad Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai Dr. G.S. Bachhii (A.W. 2) has admitted that fhe appeUaiit has not shown him aay document suggestinig itijuri.es sustamed by hiai in. aay laotor accident. On appeUanfs askiag, he has mentioned iii the certlficate fh.at the said accident occzuTed due to fhe motor accident, The rcspondent No. 1 categoricaUy denied mvolvement of his inotorcycle in the said accident on that date or 011 any ofher ^ date aixd also denied that the appellant sustamed aiiy injury ia siich case. The said evidence stands unrebutted, 9. Had it been a case of accideut adsiag out of fhe said velilcle, then the authorities of Bhilai Nursiag Home and Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai nxust have reported the xaatter to fhe poMce immiediately. As per fhe appeUaat, he was released froni the hospitel after 19 days. Thercfore, delay of more thaii one inonfh ia filmg F.I.R. has uot been explaiaed. Police on iavestigation did not find happeniag ofsuch event. 10, In view of flie above, leamed Tribunal did not coxamit aay error ia disbeMeviag the appellaiit^s oral testimony aad iii holdiag that fhe accideut did not occur due to iEivolveiaent of the vehicle in question. The appeUaiit failed ia proviag the accident by producing clinchmg evidence m fhis regard. It is tdte law that burden to prove involvement of vehicle and rash and negUgent drivnig of vehicle is upon clamiant, in. which he failed to discharge his burden, 11. In view of above, leaiiied Tribunal has rightiy disinissed the claim petition filed by the appellasat. The appeal beiag devoid of snbstaace, is liable to be aad m hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge