EIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU -’ :H R SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R. L. ‘Jhanwar , ' hn RaJendra :‘Tnathi Panel Lawer for the Sta responent .L; Jhdnwar, ,J ’R . Versus L J Jl L Jki d a , H d y agdalpur, District Bastar (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Su D epartment, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) 12.08.2010 —w adalu Jgpr ‘ eevan a S/o ate B. aara, age bout 42 years ‘ Driver R/o Near J ingla zin Mauir Naa Munda, b ivisional O$cer, Water Resoume No. APPELLANT (Claima‘nt) S p y te] d No ge bout ad a 2 1 K T11311 umalavand 3 D ) 1sinct Bastar (CG D , om ORDER () gmww Hm to APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ‘ 3, dated 12 5 2003 m Clmm Case No 62/ 200 The appellant/clalmant $ed a Cla1m Pstmon under ‘Secuon 166 (1) and Secnon 140 (1) of the Motor Vehlcles Act clamnng compensauon for Rs 2 53 000/ for sustammg fracture and mjunes and dlshgunng Ins i‘ face 1n the motor acc1dent due to rash and neghgent 0v ’ dnvmg of the Jeep by 1ts duver Jeevan Jal beanng reg1strat10n No CPZ 6520 The Tnbunal has d1smlssed V ' V the clmm pett‘uon on the ground that the clalmant has ‘not been able to prove the neghgence of the dnver Bnef facts are that on 7 8 2001 appellant/elmmant a w gomg on hls moped/Hero Puch beanng reg1strat10n No MP 25 A/ 7465 along mth Ins brother ' 111 law to purchase articles for h1s shop When he‘ teached near the tummg of C1rcu1t House, suddenly, Jeep No CPZ 6520 Wlnch was of the Government _V ‘ Department bemg drlven by respondent No 1 1n a ’ h and neghgent manner, came and dashed the ' ellant: due to Wh1ch he fell down and, ustamed ulie‘s" "on f his. rrliead‘leftj hand,,. chm bheek‘ aéad : earlobe He was taken to Maharam I Hosprtall Jagdalpur, where he Was admltted from 7 8 2001 to I 14 8 2001 H1s face has been d1s1igured due to the ‘ acc1dent he also rece1ved fracture of h1s skull 1 l 1 i l I l i : l After evaluatmg the eV1dence avallable on record and; hearmg the partles, learned Clmms Tnbunal drsrmssei’ the clmm petltlon on the ground that the appellant has I not been able to prove that the drrver of the oEendmg: - vehrcle was neghgent The Tnbunal found that the ‘ x 2 V \ ‘ : ' s J p I ‘ 1,, d 5 _ cc1dent occurred due to neghgencc of the appellant lmnself and therefom d1sm1ssed the cla1m petmon agamst wh1ch the appellant has $ed th1s apeal Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the , Tnbunal has wrongly d1sm1ssed the claJm pettlon of I, the appellant The Tnbunal has not appxemated the I documents med by the appellant In support of h1s L cla1m and 1t has wrongly draw a hndmg that the _ acc1dent has been occurred due to neghgence of the , .r ‘ I clalmant/appellant hlmself whereas, the acoldent has : l Vjlkl v been occun‘ed due to rash and neghgent dnvmg of the ' Jeep by 1ts dnver He further argued that face of the l: appellant has been d1shgu1ed 1n the motor accldent On the other hand learned counsel for respondents supported the order of d1sm13sa1 of award and argued ; that the accldent took place on account of neghgence of the appellant h1mself They submlt that when the appellant dashed the Jeep, 1t was not bemg dnven by x the dnver but 1t was standmg near the C1rcu1t House a ‘ The appellant was gomg on the Hem Puch and dnvmg l M _ j , 1t rashly and neghgently He came and dashed hJmself w1th the standmg Jeep, fell down and sustalned k mjunes therefore the respondents are not hable for any payment of compensation and the Tnbunal has nghtly d1sm1ssed the clalms pet1t10n I have heard learned counsel for the palms at length ’ " ’, " ‘ and have also perused the record of the Claims ‘ nbun a p V: : l Tal n perusal of the moord and the documents Ex P/ O 3 ' Ex P/5 and the ev1dence adduced by the appellant 1t , ’ 1s ev1dent that appellant has exammed hnnself as AWI Whlch revealed that the acoldent took place on ccount of dashmg to the Jeep and the appellant has a ece1ved mJumes, Iesultmg mto fracture and .1 lshgunng h1s face However, the appellant has fmled o prove that the acc1dent has been occurxed due to t rash and neghgent dnvmg of the Jeep dnver ccordlng the cla1m petmon, the appellant and hls M brother m law Were gomg on the moped but he has L not exammed hls brother 1n law Who was an eye 1tness of the moldent He has stated 1n para 2 that when he was swung on h1s moped the Jeep came and dashed hnn h’om behmd due to whlch he fell down nd sustamed mjunes He also stated that he was i adnntted 1n hospltal from 7 8 2001 to 14 8 2001 but l a p he has not adduced any document to prove thls fact ‘ e has also not adduced any ev1dence of med1ca1, expend1ture It 1s also ev1dent from the Ieconi and ev1dence that the headhght and mudguard of front, wheel of the mope ‘ dnver (clmmant) by hls moped othe1w13e, 1f the duver of Jeep wou -have dashed the moped hom back Slde then back s1de of the moped would have been damaged Th1s shows, that the dnver of the moped was dnvmg the moped 1n a rash and neghgent manner and dashed to standm 1 Jeep and fell down n y s Thls shows that the appellant hnnself was neghgent 1n dnvmg lns moped] Hero Puch and the Jeep was . tandmg condltlon, as 1t was stopped by Tramc Pohc a r d t A ‘ a H V t, d, V' _, ld V U g '_ j I mh s e ‘ aJled to rove nehgence o e dnver Learne I‘nbunal after erusal o e ev1ence avalae o ecox ound te aeant hJmse neen 1n nvm n m oxmon the nuna as not erre m aw 1n d th pp h d 1sm1ss1ng the clmm of e aellant on te groun t the dnver was not neghgent after areCIann the t as m here ls no meaht or mflrmlty 1n e orer dlsmlssal of the c m petmon, passed y t‘ Clmm :d/- R.L Jhanwar Judge negligent manner and dashed the étan’ding Jeep ue to whlch he fell down and sustalned mjunes Thus he f p g f th d ' p f th d lbl n rd f h ppll lf ghgt dg h1s moped and dashmg the Jeep. I y p Tbl h d l ‘ a ppg I h ghtly T gy th d of l b h s