c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. JJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(C)No.782of2009 Bisahin Bai, aged about 50 years, Widow of Late Tijauram, R/o Village Gurja, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Heeralal, aged about 15 years, S/o Babulal Satnami, through natural guardian and next friend father Babulal Baghel, S/o Sundertat Baghel, R/o Village Gujra, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Babulal Baghel, Caste Satnami, S/o Sunderlal Baghel, r/o Village Gujra, Police Station, Mandir Hasaud.Tahsil Arang, District Raipur. MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel forthe respondents.. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 14.06.2010) By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'), the appellant i.e. wife of alleged injured Tijauram has challenged the illegality and propriety of award dated 27.02.2009 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 127 of 2008 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. The award is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence which was sufficient for drawing an inference that Tijauram has received injury as a result of motor accident. r" ^ ^ 3. As per claim petition of the parties, Tijauram, husband of the present appellant has received injury on 09.10.2007 as a result of motor accident caused by respondent No.1, who was driving Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.06/A/8592 rashly and negligently. The said Motorcycle was owned by respondent No.2. The injured was privately treated and spent money in treatment. He filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal but during pendency of the Claim Petition, the injured has died and the present appellant has been substituted as his legal representative. 4. The Claim Petition has been contested by the respondents and denied the allegations made in the petition on the basis of averments. Issues were framed and after giving an opportunity to the parties, the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition. 5. Counsel for the parties heard. Award impugned and record of the Tribunal perused. 6. Shri M.K.Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although there is discrepancy relating to the treatment but F.1.R. lodged by the deceased himself is sufficient for drawing an inference that he received injury as a result of motor accident and at the time of motor accident, respondent No.1 was driving the Motorcycle, therefore, on account of motor accident and after death of Tijauram, his legal representative is entitled forjust and proper compensation. 7. On the other hand, Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that tbe appellant was under obligation to prove her case by adducing cogent evidence but the appellant has not examined any substantial witness to prove her case. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 8. In the present case, during the pendency of the Claim Petition, the original claimant has died and his wife was substituted being his legal representative. She has examined herself as A.W.1 and one Radheshyam A.W.2. Both witnesses have specifically deposed that they were informed relating to the accident by one Bhagwani and Tikaram but for the reasons best known to the appellant, she has not examined Bhagwani and Tikaram. As per documents, accident took place on — 3 09.10.2007 but F.I.R. Ex.P.2 reveals that it was lodgedon 14.11.2007. The appellant has also not examined any doctor who treated her husband. Even in her statement, she has not stated as to who has treated her husband. Her statement reveals that injured Tijauram was treated by a local Doctor with Jadi Booti (herbal treatment) in a village Hospital but in support of her evidence, no medical bill or document relating to such treatment by local doctor has been filed. In absence of such documents and evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 9. On close scrutiny, we do not find any illegality in the award impugned. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 10. Consequently, the appeat is liable to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^