^ .^7 IK Divkion Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL N0,_M 72005 i APPELLANT: (Original Applicant) Smt. SitabaiSahu z W/o Jagdish Ram Sahu, Aged about 45Years, R/o Village Chlianta, P.0.- Patewa, Thana Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, (C.G) VERSUS .¥^i \A^/1 -^l y7. .^' ^0' ^.,' ,,' ^y RESPQNDENTS: ^ 1. Bharat Ram Sahu, (Original Non-applicants) ^ ^ S/o Kapil Ram Sahu, Occupation- Auto Mechanic, R/o Village Ravan, Thana Rajim District Raipur, C.G. (Driver ofthe Vehicle) .^y^y ^2. Pramod Chhalnani, V^y / C/o Chhalnani PetrolPump /^t^ Nawapara, Thana Gobra Nawapara, Disti-ict Raipur, C.G. (Registered owner ofthe Vehicle) //y -•''^ ? 3. TheOriental Insurance , Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Branch Office No.2 , Sliri Mahaveer Goushala Parisar Moudhapara, District Raipur, C.G. ^Insiirer ofthe Vehicle) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIQH COURT OP CHHATHSQARH. BILA8PUR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hon*Me G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RB8PONDBNTS: M. A. No.913/2008 Smt. Sitabai Sahu Vs. Bharat Ram Sahu & ofhers MI8C. APPEAL UNDBR SBC5TION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLBSACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellaat. Mr. Malay Kuxnar Bhaduri, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORALORDE31 (24.06.2011) !• This appeal has been filed by fhe Claioiaat agaiast the impugaed award dated 29.04.2005 pe^sed by fhe XIII Additional Motor Accident ClaiEas Tribiinal, Raipur (C.G) io. Claim Case No.l 1/2005 dismissiag fhe claim petition ofthe ^-^ appeUant 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimaiit are fhat on 13.02.2003 at about 4.00 p.m., one motorcycle beariag Rega. No. C.G.04 CB 32413241 aUegedty driven by respondent no. 1 ia a rash and negUgent maaner dashed the appeUaat near Bus Stand Nawapara, Raipur, as a rcsidt of which, she sustaiaed injiudes maiiily on Thigh, Knee, Thiimb, Ribs aad bofh fhe haads of her body. She was admitted by rcspondents 1 & 2 ia fhe hospital aad had "'^^^^ -f' s. undergone treatment Since rcspondents 1 & 2 Iiave promised to pay some compensatioa, she has iiot fited aay complaiat. However, when fhe aaiount was not paid by respondents 1 & 2, she has lodged FIR after 12 days of the accident ie. 25,02.2003. She has filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the awand of total compensation ofRs.5,02,000/- on various faeads, Learaed Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding fhat it is not prov^l that fhe oflTendiag niQtorcycle was iavolved m the accident on 13.02.2K)03 and caused mjiuies to fhe claimaat, therefore, the claimant is not entifled to rcceive compensation. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties and have ahso gone fhrough the records, The mjunes alleged by fhe claimant have not been proved by any medical officer. Whether it is case of permanent disability or not is also not known ia absence ofany medical evidence. Thercfore, therc is no good ground to mterfere m the impugned award. In view offhe above, fhe appeal has no force and fhe same is dismissed, No oxidter as to costs, Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge v[\