gk. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench Hon’ble Shrl DIIIQ Raosaheb Deshmukh, J Mlscellaneous Appeal (C 1 No 168 of 2006 Misc. Apgeal undef Section 173 of the§ Motor Vehicles Act Present. Shn A N Pandey, counsel for the appeHant Shrl Qamrul Azyz counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER L (Passed on this 6‘“ day of January, 2009) Appellant/Claimant is aggrieved by the’ award dared 10—7-2006 passed in Claim Case No.4/2'005 by‘ the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur,‘ Surguja (henceforth ‘the tribunal’), whereby I the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth i ‘the Act’) was dismissed. (2) Brief facts are that on 29:8:20047 atabout 11:30 A.M. the appellant/claimant was ridlng his cycle towards hls home Near the Bus t Stand Raghunathpur the respondent No1 drove Motor Cycle No CG15C—2685 In a rash and negllgent manner and dashed the cycle of ' the clalmant. The claimant sustained Injuries F l R Ex P—2 of the A. 4a r» .7 inCident wast lodged" by the claimant on 7-12—20W‘ Appellant Awadesh .Kuénar Gupta, ‘S/o Late / Jagarnath Prasad Gupta aged about 43 years Occupatlon — Kirana shop, R/o Raghunathpur TehSII — Ambikapur Dist Sargu1a(CG) versus ‘ Respondents 1. Shiv Pratap Slngh S/o Shri Bihari .(Non Applicant) g, Slngh aged about 28 years R/o ' , Patradlh PS — Daurpur Dist Sargu1a(CG) f ‘ ‘ 2. Arvmd Gupta S/o Ram Chandra Gupta aged about 32 years Owner of vehicle Rlo— Patradlh PS &TehSII _—Lundra Dist Sargu1a (C G) examination report Ex P-7: of the claimant revealed that the cialrhant I' complained of paln on the Ieft buttock No external or major Injury was ‘ ‘seen Pam and tenderness on left knee was seen However, In the radiological report Ex.P-8, no bony injul‘y was seen. The claimant L examined Dr J K Bhutani ‘AW 3 who testified that he had exemlned the clalmant on 1 1O 2005 and seen 50% permanent physical Impairment in the left lower extremity i merit. Firstly, there is no explanation for‘the inordinate delay in lodging the F l R on 7-12-2004 regarding the alleged accrdent on 29 8 2004 Secondly, the M LC Report dated 7-12-2004 Ex P—7 and the X-ray Report dated 23-12—2004 Ex P-8 do not show that the claimant had sustained any grievous injury due to the alleged aCCident ln View of the fact that the injury report Ex.P-7 is dated 7-12-2004 while the accident is 7 alleged to have occurred on 29-8-2004 the tribunal has rightly held that A the claimant had failed to prove that he had sustained injury due to the. aCCIdent Deepak Kumar, A.W -2 Witness for the appellant/claimant had _ stated on oath that the claimant used to limp by the Ieft foot even before the acmdent' DrJKBhutani AW-3 has also stated in cross- ' (3) ' The tribunal on apprecration of evrdence held that the claimant ‘ ' had failed to prove that he had suffered any injury on 29 8 2004 It further held that the clalmant had failed togprove that any acoldent had occurred by the Motor Cy'cle No.CG15C-268:5 driven by respondent No.1 Shiv Pratap Singh; On these findings,;'the tribunal dismiSsed the application under Sectibn 166 of the A‘ct, (4) l have heard Shri A.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as also Shri Qamrul Aziz, learned counselfor the respondents and have also perused the record. ln my considered opinion,_this‘appeal has no‘ \ x examination that the injury mentioned in theE injury report dated 7-12- 2004 Ex.P-7 could be due to the fact that the oiaimant had suffered from Polio prior to the alleged date of the accidenti In this view of the matter, the tribunal has, on proper appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that he hgad sustained any injury or d isability due to the alleged accident on 29-8-2004. l , (5) There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd—/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge