HIGH COURT Q? CHHATTI5GARH AT 33LA$FUR SB: Hon’bie $hri JustEce R. L, Jhanwar, MA: No‘ 6?9 o? 20Q2 APPELLANT Dwarika Prasad Sahu Versus RPONDENT$ ES Sukh Ram Verma and oéhers. QRDER For Pronouncamem of Omar x ”704201 1 ‘Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge HIGH CQURT 9F GHHé'ATTISGARé-i : B§LASPUR S§M€§LE BENCH: HON‘ELE SHR! R‘LJF ‘NWAR u" Misc. Appeai No.$?3 of 2%2 . APPELLAN? : Dwarika Prasad Sahu, aged about 42 6LA1MAN'E‘ yeam, Sio Heeraman Sahu. Rio Gram Rewa, Tahsi! & Districi Raipw ('QG.) VER$U$ RESPGNDENTS : 1. Sukh Ram Verma,Aged about38 yeax's‘ Sic Thijjuram Verma‘ Occupation Driver; R/o Mander Hasaud, Tah. Distt. Raim? (CG) NON-§‘PF§L§CANTS The State of Chhaiiisgarh, Through Di$trict Collector, Raipur. The Directorate, Heaith Services, The State cf C‘nhatkisgarh, through Chief Health Officer, behind Manirafay’a, Raipur (C.G.} !\J ()a ,aPF‘EAL UN§ER $ECT§QN 1?3 OF E'HE MQTQR VEHEQLES ACE} $38 Appearance: Shré Saurabh $harma Mih Shfi A.L.S§ngraui, counseE fer the appe§£ani Shri S.R.J.Jaiswa!, Pane! Lawyer for the S‘tatefrespundents M12 & 3. Nana for respondent No.1. 6RSER (Passed on b“ .0429”: 1) This is daimant’s appeal. Not being satisfied by the amcuni' 3f campensatien or" Rs.76,032l— awarded by ihe 2nd Additioriai Meier Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, Raipur, in Ciaim case No.55/2001, ihe ciaimant preferred ihis instant appeal fer enhaneemeni of amoun‘ 0f compensation 2. Brief facts, as per pleadings or' the ciaimant, are ihat on 18.01 .2001 the iraorc-r bearing No. MP. 23 GB 0978 (for short ‘the trastor’), owned by ihe appellant was being driven by Rajendra Sa‘nu, Whe was coming to Raipur by driving ihe tractor at a snail’s pace in extreme lefl and W'nen he reached fire bridge situaied at Anandnagar, at t'ne same time, appellant No3, who was driving the TATA Sumo bearing No. MP. 02-5154 in rash and reckless mannei, cau$ed head seliis§on, due ’zo which, the tmctor get éamagedbadh; The ascident took mace at 11‘30 pm 3. Gn a maim peiition seeking compensaiien of Rs.1,‘:4,7f57i— a“ var§ous heads fiied by the appeiiant, the Tribunai, cm close sca'utiny of ‘Ehe evidemce, materia! piased and respective submissions made by €he parties, held that on the date of accident due i0 fash ahd reckiess driving e? TATA Sumo by its driver, accident had oscurred in which the traster get damaged and awarded a sum cf Rs.?§,i332!— as compehsa‘tich f0? ’ihe damages saused i0 the Said tractor. The Tr§bunal ume awarded 5% per anhum on lthe ameumt of eompenseheh from ihe date 0f fihng cf céafm pe’zition im éhe date of aciuef paymeei. 4. Learned ceunsel fer ihe appeiiaht argued that the cemeenearior; awarded by the §eamed Tr§buna¥ is on iower side Whereas w eught is have awarded adequately. ' He urged ihat cempensaiion awarded by the ieamed Tribuhai may suitabiy be enhanced. 5. On ihe ether hand, iearned eounsei fer respendenis N92 & 3 w .i!e eapporiing the impugned crder argued that the tracter was insured by the New Ehdia tnsurance Company Limited and the insurance compare which insuted he traeter was not made party, and therefere, t e appeat is act maintarname. x z 6. Havtng heard rival submisstens, t have perused the reeerd 0t Jla sue ‘é‘ribunat aad impugned order. in the present case, it ts net disputed that an the date of aectdent, the TATA Sumo was Lmder the poseess‘ron ef respondent N02 and the same was drivtng by respondent Nat. t is a§se not dleputed that the appellant is ewner at the tractor. 2h its evidence, appetlarrt Dwarika Prasad Sahu has stated that due to rash and reektess drivtng of driver of TATA Sumo, the tractor get damaged and for that HR. was iedged and a criminal case was registered. He was produced doeumehts to show that he has got ti e tractor repaired and for mat he has spent Es.70,QOO/v. He has aiso stated that he did hot get any penny tram the insurance eempany. supporting the evidence of appellant, AW2 Sri Yajcii Rae stated that he has taken photograph of the damaged tractor which is exhibited as EX.P.9 to EXPEe. According to his evidence, this witness isthe stzrvevor or that trsLctar and atter he accideht and assessed s Lint mt J ihe damaga at Rs.6?,287/- AW‘ 3 Jehan a§so supported the @sédemce of ihe appeHgnt in this View of the matter, it is thus dear ihat due to rash and negiigeni drivmg 0f driver of TATA Sumo, the iracter get damagaca. The Wbuna} has i’ighiiy heid the drivér 0f TATA Sum: liabie far $ausiag damages i0 the trac€en 7. So fay as the question sf enhancement (3f ccmpensaii-on is cansemed, appe§iant has pioduced document E:<.P.4, which Es a i‘epori of mechen‘Qs, va§uating Rs.84,086/— whereas surveyor report EX.P.25 shows toe evahJation of damages of the tracioy as Rs.6?,26?/« EX.P.9 5:0 5x524 are the photogyaphs of damagediractor takeo out by A.W2 Sri Ye§e§ Rae, surveyor cf ihe tractor. The appe!!ent aiso wc-duced EX.P.8 showing the expenses of Rs.1500/- incurfed in bringing the tractor to mechanic fmm ’ihe p!e.c e? accadem. The Tfibuna}. re§ying upon evidenee adducezi by Ehe appeiEant and Eis ooz’roboration by the other witnesses name¥y R.W.2 So Yajui Rao ehd A."<!\!.3 Johan and considering ihe aii ihe documents, as mea’tioned above, and the 'iaof that the above said documents are proveo! ‘oy the appeiiaht, thought it appropriate to awaw a sum ot Rs‘75,832/~ and accordingty awarded so The Tribunal “further held the respondents No. 2 & 3 ttahie for payment of compensation 8. Havtng thus discussed above, t am of the stew .gthat the r “r i rihunat has accepted the oontentions of the appeitant and reiying upon the evtdenoe adduced on behalf of the appettaht and document the Tribunat has rtghtty awarded Rs.?6,032/v- as compensation for the damages oausert to the tractor owned by the appettant. t do not findany illegaiity in the impugned order and hence the same is impeccabte. 9. Consequently, the appeat, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs v (D 'Sd/- ‘ ’ R.L. Jhanwar Judge