COURT FEES EXEMPTED TiFlCAT!ON N0. QQSWD 2870/X . m. BByCbfgJOS I 8: 11 OF THE AS «ESPEClFiED COURT FEES 1N SCHEDakétéE ACT 1 . §3m§§§w mmm M n «Q § 1N THE HIGH COURT OF'JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (cm M.A. (c1 No...l..?;8..[2oos VERSUS Ms. m RESPONDENT NO. 1 l Prakash @ Guddu L “APPLICANT NO. 1 S/o Late Dhaniram Naharkarai (g/ Occupation Caste Domar, Labourer Aged about 24 years R/o Sonkarpara, Sonmuda Road Raigarh, Tehsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENT NO. 2 2 Nuratram S/o Vishikeshan Sidar £01? APPLICANT N0. 1 Aged about 45 years Occupation-Service (Driver) Office of Agriculture Department, Raigarh R/o Gandhi Nagar, Atarmuda, Raigarh Tehsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G.) % MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE AWARD, PASSED BY THE WIVth MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL (FTCI, RAIGARH [F.T.C.) IN CLAIM CASE NO. \Nw‘“ \ t r 5(2007 ON 311 0i 2007 $ Claim in Appeal valued at Rs. 1?;5,000/- (As awarded by the Tribunal below) Arising out of the award dated 317‘10/2007 passed by the lVth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raigarh in Claim Case No. 56/\2007 The appellants/State beg to prefer this appeal inter alia on the following facts and grounds; 9 : .4 5 19 i w APPELLANT NO‘ 1 1-. State of Chhattisgarh /’(NNON APPLICANT NO. 3) Through The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) APPELLANT NO. 2 2./ The Deputy Director (IT/0N APPLICANT NO. 2) Department of Agriculture g Collectorate Campus, Raigarh (C.G.) g WWW) ;\\ HIGE COURT OF CHEMTTIS»G-ARH MI BILA$PUR MA. gC). NO. 178 OF 2008 APPELLMTE} State of cmiattisgarh and anather Versus, RESPONDENTS Prakash @ Guddu and another ORDER Post for \7 - 12-2009 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Y‘r‘,‘ wr mw‘ v w SINGLE BENCH: J « Hon. Shri MK. Agarwai, . :- ri GI). Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the appellants Shi‘i Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Adv, fin‘ the re31301id€ntf1a 1. ORDER ( 17 42-2009) 1. This is owner’s appeal againSt the award dated SL10— 2OG7 paSsed by he Nth Additional Motor Accident shims Tribunal, me} Raigarh in claim Case No; 56/2007 Wl‘mmby and whermmciér learned Tribunal hag awarc'ied R3 1,73,000/ — in favour of the claimant for ma injuries, $Lustai1'1cd by him as agah’lst the ownfzr am} driver 0f e vaicle along with mterca at tha rate th h of 7.5% pm annum from ths date of application till its Y€COV€FV . 2. rief facts of he (£186 e“ as under:— B t at C)1. The ciaimant while gomg 011 TVS Mopsd on 26~12~2005 to Vinage Dhanagar, which was 136mg driven by 0116 G-érdhari, amt with an accident with jeep bearmg mgi‘stmticn N0. CG 02~1566 being drivan by respondent No. 2 anci owncad by the appella11tS bscause 0f rash guild neglige riving of tbs driver of the jeep. The claimant nt d sustained grievoue injuries; in the said accident I‘eeulting HxGH 60mm OF GHHMTISGM M? mumpvm MA. {C}. No. 178 OF 200$ PRESENT Sh { APPELLANM State of Chhat‘iisgari‘l and aimther Vemus RE$PONDENT$ PrakaSh @, Guddu anc‘x anatlmr h) in amputation of his right 16g. The Claimant Claimed Rs. 9,53,400/- agairggyft 1:116 appellant as Wdl as respondant No. 2 as compensation for th6 injuries sustajnéd by him by filing application undar Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briofly, the Act). The driver and the owner of the vehicle by tiling their written Statement separately although admitted the said accident but denied their liability on the ground that the jeep driver was not responsible for the said accident as the Said accident did not occur due to rash and negligent dn‘ving of the jeep by its driver. Learned Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence led, material placed on record and submissions made by the parties, found the jeep driver negligent and responsible for the said accident and awarded compensation to the claimant as referred hereinabove Hence this appeal. @ Shri Waswani, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants would submit that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal regarding responsibility of the jeep driver to the said accident is perverse and based on no evidence and, therefore, the award passed by learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. For this, he referred to the statement of AW 2 Nitin Naharkar i.e. ELR. maker; statement of the applicant and also the statement of 11S. Tomar, Sr. Agriculture Development Oiiicer, Raigarh, and contended that the learned Tribunal has passed the award basing its finding only on the police papers whereas there is nothing in the evidence adducxad by the claimant t0 Suggest negligence ofjeep driver. Per centra, Shri Santoeh Tiwari, learned counsel appearmg for the claimant supported the award and submitted that learned Tribunal haS passed the said award and recorded the said fuming which i8 based on appreciation of evidence and the award paeeed by the Earned Tribunal deserves to be upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugled and the record of the case. lndlsputably, according to police papers, the jeep driver was solely responsible for the said accident. Apart from it, the claimant examined himself who is aleo eye- witness, to the said accident. In para 5 of his statement, he has stated that at the time of accident, his moped was in stationary condition and he was standing nearby the said moped. This statement has neither been controverted nor any question has been asked to rebut the said contention; on the contrary, the suggestion was given that the said jeep did not dash him. Nowhere it has been suggested that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said moped. The claimant has also examined the FIR. maker. Further the Witness examined by the appellants has not explained how the accident occurred. His Statament is as vague as it could be. In these circumstances, R cannot be Said that the fmding recorded regarding negligence of the jeep driver is perverse or is based on no evidence. More over, the jeep driver has not been examined by the appellant who was an important Witness so as t0 explain the cause of the accident. This fact further goes against the appellants. In View of the above, I do not fmd any merit in the contention put-forth by Shri Waswani that learned Tribunal has erred in holding the jeep driver responsible for the said accident. No other points have been raised. 10. In View of the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ll. No order as to costs.