ftlnfi!®B8P? sssas?r3iS^? •'&.s-s^ ~i3 ~ oasisy BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT t5SI BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fCl No. ^ 5<3li /2010 - APPELLANT /: CLAIMANT Yogeshwar @ Yadram Sahu, S/o Shri Mahadev Sahu Aged about 35 Years, R/o Mangal Bazar, Kundrapara Gudiyari Raipur, Raipur, ,(C.G.) Tehsil & District VERSUS RESPON&ENTS: NON-APPLICANTS Pradeep Pillai, S/oShri P.K. Pillai, Aged bout 35 years R/oJ-752, Janta Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur, C.G. (Owner of Vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 B 5864) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. C.B.O.-2, Madina Building , 1st floor, Jail Road Kutchery Chowk Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of Vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 B 5864) 3. Chief Divisional Manager Railway, East Coast Railway Sambalpur, Orissa. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR M.A.CONo. 06 of2011 APPELLANT Yogeshwar @ Yadram Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Pradeep Pillai & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT CSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Satyendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. QRALORDER (Passed on 06.01.2011) 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the award dated 13.09.2010, passed by the Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claimcaseNo. 185/2009. 'ff- 2. Brief facts of the case accordmg to the appellant are that, on 27.04.2008, while driving Maroti Car bearing registration No. CG-04-B-5864, tfae said Car was dashed by the driver of Train as a result ofwhich the appellant sustained multiple injiiries. 3. The appellant preferred application before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 76,568/- for the injuries sustained by him on account ofthe said aecident. 4. The Tribunal, on a elose scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, dismissed the claim petition on the ground fhat the income pleaded by the claimant is more than Rs. 40,000/-per annum and therefore the claim petition filed under Section 163- A ofthe MV Act is not maintainable. . Sahu 5. Shri Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant seeks pennission of this court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application un3er Section 166 ofthe MV Act. 6. Prayer is allowed and the appellant is permitted to file an application afresh under Section 166 ofthe MV Act. If such an application is filed, the trial court shall decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the above stated liberty. No order as to costs; . Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge