!'''^'?"'-.T- :^^h:^i ^'^•w'8'"^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. No.833 of 2003 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VijayshankarChoudhary Versus Thanda Ram ORDER For Pronouncement of Order 21 .10.2010 .—^x__. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. APPELLANT Non-applicant M.A. No. 833 of 2003 Vijayshankar Coudhary, son of Shri Gajanand Prasad Choudhary, aged about 45 years, caste Aghariya, Occupatibn Jeep Owner and Driver, Resident of village Takela, Tah. And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Thanda Ram, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Gajanand Prasad Choudharym, Caste Aghariya, Occupation - Advocacy and Agriculturist, resident of Kowatal, P.S. Pusaur, Tah. And DistrictRaigarh (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT RESPONDENT '^{|ai^%'I^^^|| AppearanGe: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Saraf, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passedon^v.10.2010) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle against the award dated 25.07.2003 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Case (F.T.C.), Raigarh in claim ease No. 63/2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sumof Rs.24,856/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date offiling ofclaim petifion till realization. 2. Brief facts pf the case is that on 6.9.1999 at 5.00 p.m. the claimant ThandaRam was going on his motor cycle, near Kowatal pond, the Jeep bearing No. M.P.26/W 0435 (henceforth 'the Jeep'), which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, appellant herein, dashed the motorcycle from opposite side, due to which, claimant Thanda Ram sustained injuries on his bodyand also sustained fracture on his right leg. A report was lodged at PoliceStation Pusour by Nirakar Patel and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of JudiGial Magistrate, Raigarh against the appellant. 3, According to the claimant, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Raigarh and due to hospitalization he was unable to work for one year. He was earning Rs.2000/- per month and was also earning Rs.5000/- from agriculture. On these grounds, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation on various heads before the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. Appellant/respondent has filed his written statement denying all the avermentsmentioned in the claim petition and stafed therein that no such aceident had taken place with his Jeep and he had been falsely implicated by theclaimant — Thada Ram. Respondent No.2 / insurance company has also filed its written statement but it was found by the Tribunal that the said Jeep was not insured with the insurance company on the date of accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was falsely implicated by the claimant because of political rivalry. She further argued that in a criminal case the appellant convicted but in appeal the appellantwas acquitted, therefore, it is clear that there was no negligence on his part, as such; the appellant is not responsible to pay any compensation to the claimant. The tearned Claims Tribunal has erredin not appreciating theevidence led before it. It has also wrongly assessed the income of the claimant resulting into award of Rs.24,856/-. 5 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned award. 6. T have heard learned counsel fpr the appellant and have perused the evidence available on record. 7. So far as the involvement of the said Jeep of the appellant in the said accident is concerned, it is clear frpm the evidence of A.W.1 Thanda Ram that on 6.9.1999 at 5.00 p.m. when he was going to his village, oh way at Kowatal pond, the offending Jeep, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, due towhich he fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. As a result of such accident, he lodged an.F.I.R. vide Ex.A.1 againstthe appellant. On perusal ofF.I.R. Ex.A.1, it is clear that the accident, which had taken plaee on 6.9.1999, a Wsl had occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof the appellant Vijayshankar Choudhary and the name of the appellant had also been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. which was lodged immediately after the accident. Later on, the said Jeep was seized and was given to the appellant on Supurcfnama from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh. This fact was also admitted by the appellant Vijayshankar Choudhary N.A.W.1 in his evidence. It was also admitted by him that a report was lodged against him due to accident caused by him and he was also owner of that Jeep. The evidence of A.W.1 Thanda Ram coupled with the admission bythe appellant makes crystal clear that the Jeep was involved on the date of accident took place on 6.9.1999. 8. It is clear from the evidence of A.W.1 Thanda Ram and Ratan Lal Sarthi A.W.2 that on the date of accident, the appellant himself was driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. As the eye witness Ratan Lal Sarthi A.W.2 was also present with the claimant, therefore, his evidence that the said Jeepwas involved on the date of accident and due to such accident the claimant sustained injuries cannot be discarded. 9. As regards rash and negligent act on the part of the appellant, it is clearfrom the evidence ofA.W.1 Thanda Ram and A.W.2 Ratan Lal Sarthi that at the time of accident took place on 6.9.1995 at 5.00 p.m. they were going on motor cycle and thesaid Jeep, being driven by the appellant rashly and negligently, was coming from opposite side and due to such speed the said Jeep dashed their motorcycle, as a result of such dash, Thanda Ram Patel sustained injuries and his right leg was fractured. The appellant has cross-examined these witnesses in lengthy but has not been able to elicit anything in their crQSS-examination. Therefore, it is apparent that on the date of accident, the said Jeep was involved and the appellant was driving the Jeep in rash and negligent manner. 10. The evidence of the appellant that he found the claimant fell on the road; has not caused any injury to claimant by causing aceident and he brought the claimant to Dr. Rajendra Agrawal for treatment is of no use because his witness Murlidhar N.A.W.2 didnot support the evidence of the appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant himself admitted that a case was registered against him, in which he was booked on account of accident caused by him and thereafter hewas acquitted. But in his written ; statement he did not mention that he saw the claimant fell on the road and took him to the hospital and also did notstate any thing about the enmity between him and the claimant. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable. Thus, it is clear that the he caused the accident and as a result of such aGcident the claimant sustained injuries. 11. The contention thatthe appellant was acquitted in criminal appeal, therefore, he is not responsible to pay compensation to the claimant is unacceptable because the evidence in criminal case is of different nature and is not binding on the evidence led before the Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal has, after evaluating the evidence led before it, rightly found that the appellant was driving his Jeep in rash and negligent manner and due to such rash and negligent driving, the accident took place and in that accident, the claimant sustained injuries. 12. So far as compensation of Rs.24,856/- awarded bythe Tribunal to the claimant - Thanda Ram is concerned, the Claims Tribuna] has rightly fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.15000/- notionally and after considering the documents i.e. relating to medical expenses and loss of ihcome and the injuries sustained by him, produced by the claimant, it awarded a sum of Rs.24,856/-, which 1 am of the view, is just and reasonable compensation. , 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award does not suffer from material irregularity or infirmity. The impugned award hsis been passed by the Tribunal purely relying on the dinching and credible evidence on record and thus calls for nointerference. 14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the owner, being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and js hereby dismissed. No order as to oosts. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge