lf!;l:S!i!: :ii;: • -I n ilii.il.Il HIGHGOURTOFCHHATnSGARHWTESItASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 505 of 2004 r- •• • •: •. . . .. •' ' • APPELLANT : State ofCNiattisgarh Non-aDDlicantNo.3 •\ FtESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Rama Yadu & Others Claimants APPEALUNDERSECTIONt730FTHE MOTOR VEMICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. QtKtdusi & 1-lon'bieShriJusUeeN.K.Agarwal., Present : Shri Vinay Harite DgiMity ^vccate§<^rieFal^^^^ .appellant--1:14,..,•,...^ :';:.." Sttri Raja^SI'rarrna, /ledsocate for the respondent No. 5. ORALORDER {PasSMlon 6.10.2010) Per: I.M. Quddusi, J. Heard 1. The instant appeal hais been prefen'ed by and on behalf bf the I" • . . • . . '.•'•'.' .. '•' •• :. .. •• ..•:•.••'-... State of Chhattisgarh against the award dated 05.12.2003 passed by the lltrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur <for short the Tribunal') in elaim ^ase No. 168/02, awarding Rs. 3,t0,000/-totheclatniarrts. 2. Brtef facts of the case are that.on 06.08.2002 Sukalu Ram Yadu (since deeeased) ^ite drivjng his Motorc^le He^^ Honda, was dashed by the Driver of Maruti (C^vt. v bearing registrgtion MP-02/4394, as a result of whieh he suceumbedtotheii^Lmessustainedj|i1:Nesatdaecident. 3. The Glainriar^ preferr^ an appticaSon befbre e Tribynal . ^ ? under Section 166 Qf the^ Mi^ .,e>/-^' /./ ^ l!ii i l compen^tfon to the tuneof Rs. 10,94,0(X)/- for the death deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a closescrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material avaitable on the record.and submisSions oftheparties,awardedRs. 3,10,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of appllc^itiontill itspayment. 5. Shri Vinay Harjt, learned Deputy AdvocateOeneral appearing fbr the appellant/State has contended thatatthe Umewtien the accident had taken place, the vehicle was not in running position butthe driver stopped the vehicle and it was the driver of moitorcycle who collieded with the vehicle ofappellant and died. He further submitted that according to the statement of Smt. Rama Yadu (AW-1), the deeeased was in habit to con$ume liquor and she alwayssuggested him not to consume Itquorwhttednvingthemotorcycle. 6. Shri Harit also submitlea that ohe scooter collieded wth the vehicte of the appellant from behind but it is nobodles case. The driyer of the appellant's vehicle namely T. Unnikrishnan (NAW-2) had given the report of accident in writjng to tHe Superintenident of Poliee at Lokayukt, Raipur, on 06;08.02 (Ex. D/1-C) whi6h has been proved by him. In this report, it has been mentioned that on the date of accident wliile he was passingthrpugh Home Guardofftce, ait^trneonescxxte fom wrong ^and madea ^ and he^i^tosave him. AncXt^r \ -SGOOter came ftom behind ftom iyit skte and collieded and he \. -\'y •-•!- ~y ^^^^^^•'•rLE* r^§^fe:£i^:L^^ ^SSVS;5 ^:'s'-&:ilii '1:: f <L:' stopped the vehicle, immediately from frontsjde one Hero Hondaall of asudden came and became unbalanced and collieded with his vehicle. In his statement before the Tribunal concerned, in examination in chief, he has stated that white he was going towards Home Guard office and was just to takea tum at that time the scooter from opposite direction came and made a 'cut' and the other scooter came from behind and coltieded and he stopped the yehicle and from ppposite directionHeroHondalVIotorcycl&withspeKlcameandatso collieded with his vehicle. Therefore, the facts narrated by him shows that three vehteles were involved in the said accident with the appellant's vehicle out of which two from front side and one from behind andsinee the driver ofthe appellant's vehtete was going to take a tum, in this situatiorr, it cannot be said that the driver of theappellant's vehiclewas notdriving the vehiele wlth speed while in a position to take a turn, otherwise, three vehicles would not have been cotlieded with his vehicte. The another injured person who was driving thescooter and with whose scooter theappellant's vehicte have collieded, lodged FIR as well as appeared in the Witness boxas AW-2 namely Ghanshyam Das, who had also stated the fact that his scootercollieded because of the high speed of the vehicle and not only hisscooter but Hero Honda motorc^cle, which was Just behind his scooter also collieded and his hahd got fractured and hiswife alsoreGeived injuries. InWs cross examination he has stated that he camedown from the road. l-1e denied the ["^E Sabw fact that same scooter and another scooter made a c* due to which he became unbalanced and collieded wlth the vehicle in question. He has also denied that when the vehicte stopped, thereafter l-1ero Honda came and collieded with the vehicle. . 8. Wtth regard to quantum, Shri Harjt does not want to press the same. 9. ThereTore, the appellants are resRonsible for the acts committed by the driver of the appellanfs yehtele as he was under their employment. 10. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunat. Accordihgly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge ^ Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge iUL 'll'-