•Q ^s'?K.e^'"'i'^ ^Sf^^.:?:, '••^.•.•'..^••••^'•.••^'^?^^.' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: M.A.rciNo. ^ /somSiwS Ram Balak Singh, Aged 45 Yrs S/o Late Kailash Singh Dangi R/o Behindi Jai Bharat Kiraya Bhandar Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur Distt. Raipur [Chhattisgarh] VERSUS 1. Surendra Kumar Verma ,Aged 39 years, S/o Late Shri years, s/o '.\-^ .^</B'L. Verma, R/o Balaji Mandir .'^••s \i^-^ Anand Nagar,Telibandha ..^"^Q^" .p.f.'.1A' ;..^ ;\.; Anand Nagar, Telibandha P.S. Telibandha, Raipur Distt. Raipur [C.G.] The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch No.l Second Floor, Bajrang Market R.D. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] MISCELLENOUS APP^ALJJ/S^.TSOF' MOTOR V@IICLE ACT Ram Batak Sinah Surendrs Kumar Verma & another. (Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.i : Shri Rahul Birthare, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. \: (Passed on 9* day of February, 2010) This is claimant's appeal against the dismjssal of his claim petition vide award dated 25-09-2007 passed t>y Eteventh Additional Motor Accident CSaims Tribuna. (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') in Case No.34/2006. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: According to appellant/claimant, on 07-06-2005 at 12-30 noon when he was returning from his work-shop situated at Telibandha by his Luna bearing regisfration No. C.G. 04-2E/8732, was dashed by respondent No.1 by driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 04/0603 rashfy and negiigently as a result of vrfiich the appellant sustained muitiple injuries. The appeiiant became unconscious, tried to lodge the report after two days, the same was not registered by the pofice and only after 1 7 days, the F.i.R. was registered and the case is pendtng against respondent No.1 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 3. The appellant/claimant claimed Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aiieged accident against the respondents by filing ciaim petltion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicfes Act (for short 'the Act'). 4. The. ciaim was contested by the respondents. Respondent No.1 took.a ptea that the police report is fatee. On 07-06-2005, afleged accident did n&t occur by his motoreycte, even the appelfant has not, intimated the doctor about the alteged accident, who treated him immediate.iy after the alteged accident. Report has been todged after 17 days without mentioning vehide number and, therefore, the cteim being forged, is liable to be dismlssed. Respondent No.2 also fiied its written statement and denied the iiabiiity to pay compensation. The learned Tribuna! framsd several issues. 8. The claimant examined himself. None was examined by the respondents as fheir witnesses. 7. Learned Tribunal on ciose scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held that the appellant did not sustain any injury in the accident, as alieged and dismissed the claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the basis of delay in lodging F.i.R., the claim cannot be dismissed. However, he faiied to explainthe fact that if the appellant/ciaimant has seen the number of the vehicle alieged to be invoived in the said accident and if the F.i.R. has been iodged after 17 days of the said accicfent, i.e. after his discharge from the hospital then, why the vehicle's registration number was not disciosed at the time of making F.1.R. He also coulef not explain as So why the matter has not been reported to the hospital in which he was said to be admitted after said accident for his treatment. Admittedly, he remained there for six days and after that he has been discharged. S.' !t is frite iaw that the burden to prove involvement of fhe offending vehiete in the accident is on the ciaimant for which the appellant/ciaimant has utterly failed to prove the same. 10: !n view of above, in the considered oplnion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any errbr in dismissing the ciaim petition warranting interference of this Court. 11. For the foregoing, i do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeai being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby K'.T Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge \;