IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIGARH AT BILASPUR FC.G.1 M.AJC1NO. 9^3 /2010 •^""-.^ APPELLANT: ..^•(*^""v'^Lr^ LBanJaJ Rs; ^•^^^^ aw^G- Tejilal, S/o Mohan Sahu, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Joor 8s Tah. Surajpur Distt. -.] p.i-1 RESPONDENT: VERSUS Likeshwr Prasad @ Bablu Rajwdey, ^' resident of Joor Police Sub Station Basdai P.S. 85 Tah. Surajpur Distt. Surguja [C.G.] APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE M0TTER VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 963 of 2010 Appellant Tejilal Versus Respondent Likeshwr Prasad alias Bablu Rajwdey MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1973 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P. K. Patel, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 22nd day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant arises from the award dated 7th December, 2009, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Soorajpur, District - Surguja, dismissing the claim petition. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/claimant are that on 11.3.2005 the respondent went to the house of the appellant and took him on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 15-D/5121, to Arjunpur in order to show him some piece of land. On that day at about 7-8 p.m. while they were returning back, due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent, the appellant fell down from the motorcycle and received various injuries. He was admitted in Mission Hospital, Ambikapur from 26.2.2005 to 31.3.2005. Thus the appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/- under various heads. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. ., Having, regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record learned Claims Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the ev^si^ appellant/claimant has failed to prove that the accident was caused by the motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent and in fact it was not a case ofmotor accident. While going through the papers and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal we see no pervrersity or illegality in the impugned award. It is evident that Dr. Arvrind Paik (AW3) has deposed that the appellant was admitted in Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 26.2.2005 and he was discharged on 21.3.2005. The appellant (AW 1) has deposed that the accident had taken place on 11.3.2005, not on 25.2.2005 and he himself had lodged a report (Ex.P/2) in the police station on 25.3.2006. In the final report (Ex.P/1) the police has mentioned ^the date of incident as 25.2.2005. In his cross- examination the appellant has stated that he had not lodged any report in the police station for a period of about one year from the date pf incident and stated that he immediately lodged the reporf but no such report lodged with the police has been produced and proved by the appellant. Further, a photocopy of the report dated 6.3.2006, allegedly lodged by Manbodh Sahu (brother in law of the appellant) in the police station Ramanujnagar, was produced which was to the effect that on 25.2.2005 Akhileshwer took the appellant on his motorcycle and the accident had taken place on that day. The appellant has stated that he had lodged report against Akhileshwer whereas the report was lodged against the respondent. The version of the appellant and the evidence produced by him are fiLill of contradictions. The appellant has failed to show how the accident had occurred on 11.3.2005 when he was admitted in Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 26.2.2005 and was getting treatment as a indoor patient till 21.3.2005. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _^__- ^5_^ • . • _. ...- Sd/- I.lVI.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur