IUIIIililllit'.fiaWiWliW.a'UasAUUMU.oilifc T^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILJ^PUR SB: Hoa'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. ( Cl No. 352/2006 APPELLANTS (Npn-AppUcaats No. 2 8s 31 1 Zonal Leprosy 0£5cer Through ChiefMedical Officer, Bilaspur (CG) 2 StateofChhattisgarh Through The CoUector Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS Applicant (Non-AppUcant No. 1) 1. Piyush Jaiu aged about 20 years, S/o Shri Prabhat Cbaadra Jaui, R/o Priyadarshini Nagar, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur (CG) 2. Raaiakant Dubey s/o Shri Babulal Dubey, Aged about 32 years, R/o viUage Kadar Police Station Chakarbhatha Presently residiug at Yadunandan Nagar, District Bflaspur (CG) (Vebicle Driver) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Rajeudra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the appellants/ State. Shri Varua Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Divya Banjare, counsel for respondent No. 2. ORDER (^) .09:2010) ,J. 1. By fhis appeal, appeUaats have chaUenged the legaUly aild validity of fhe award dated 14.7.2006, passed by fhe 10th Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal (PTC), Bilaspur (for sbort 'the Tribunal'), passed in CIaim Case No. 112/2004, in which, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,35,000/- as conipensation to the claimaut/ respondent No.l- Piyush Jaia on account of the injuries sustamed by hiui iu fhe motor accident. 2. Brief facts necessaiy for disposal of this appeal are that on 3.8.2001, claiaiaat/respondent No.l - Piyush Jam, an Enguieering student, was gorag to CoUege on his Scooter, at that tuue, near Jarhabhata Teinple, Ramakaat Dubey Non appUcant No.l/respondent No.2, was driviag the Jeep, bearing Registration No. MP 02/0880 rashly aad negligently aad he dashed fhe claimaat, due to which, the clainiaat sustauied various grievous injuries. The claimant was aged about 20 years. Respondents No.2 aad 3 were ftie owner of the offendiag Jeep. Charge sheet was ffled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Due to fhe iajuries, fhe claim.aat had to undergo surgery thrice. He was operated at Chaudulal Chandrakar, Hospital, Bhilai, where he was adinitted from 14.8.2001 to 20.10.2001 saui he could not appear in fhe exainiaation. He filed a claim petition, claituuig coiapensation ofRs.5,00,145/-. Non-applicants No.l and 3 ia fiieir written statement denied all fhe facts aad stated fhat the accident occuncd due to rash aad negligent driviag of the Truck by its driver, fherefore, they arc not responsible for ttie payment of comLpensation. The Jeep is iu the ownership of State of Chliatdsgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh is a necessary party.. 3. After perusal of reeord, issues were franied and after appreciation of the evidence, learaed Tribuiial has awarded Rs.,10,000/- towards loss of 1 year; Rs.10,000/- for beconiiug juiiior^by two seinesters; Rs.5,000/- towards paui and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendaat aad Rs.1,00,000/- |i. [t i sEi irr i . ..^""-"•'''-. towards inedial expenses, fhus, the Tribunal has awarded a total conipensation. of Rs.1,35,000/- to the claunaat/ respondent No. 1 for the iajuries sustaiaed by hJTn ia fhe inotor accident, agam.st which fhis appeal has been fUed. 4. I have heard learaed counsel for the parties at length and have perused fhe record ofthe Clamis Tribunal. 5. It is clear fhat Pivush Jaui was the student of Engineering CoUege. On 3.8.2001, he was going on his Scooter to fhe CoUege, at fhat tiiae, Jeep No. MP 02/0880 was being driven by respondent No.2 ia a rash and negUgent pianner and he dashed the claixaaut. The clamiant feU down aad sustaiaed grievous iajuries. For the iryuries, he had undergone surgeiy thrice for at Chandulal Chaudrakar Hospital, Bhilai. He was adinitted there from 14.08.2001 to 20.10.2001 for more thaa 2 monfhs. His rectum was not properly workmg, for wtuch, he was operated twice. The claimant has exhibited aU the docuinents. In cross examiaation uotfaiag could be eUcited. Dr. Prabhat Jain (AW-3) fafher of the claimaat, though was not aa eye witness, has stated about the treatnient aad expenditure iacurred. Dr. Suviinal Datt (AW-2) has stated fhat on 6.12.2001, the claitaaat was adinitted and.he was operated by Tiivri twice as his rectuui was not worknig properly. Dr. Vijay Kuniar Venna' (NAW-1), Leprosy OfBcer was sitttng aiid was gotag to Bitha, has stated that no accident has been occurred due to their Jeep. The accident occurred on account ofrash aad negUgent driviag offhe Truck by its driver aad not by fh.eir Jeep. When. fhe claimaat feU down, due to dashiag by fhe truck, they stopped fheir Jeep and took fhe iajured person to hospital, fherefore, fhe clauaant under wrong impression has implicated fhem fhis case. Ramakaat Dueby (NAW-2) has supported ftie version of Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma. One criximial case is also pendiag against Racaakaut Dubey, driver of fhe offending vehicle. Therefore, it is clear fhat accident has occurred by fhe offendiag Jeep and Ramakant Dubey was driviag fhe -Jeep. Therefore, the Tribuiial has not erred in reachiag to fhe conclusion that fb.e driver of the Jeep was negligent, 6. So far as fhe quaatuin is concemed, fhe Tribunal has not erred aad has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of 1 year; Rs.10,000/- &r becoiiung junior by two semesters; Rs.5,000/- towaids pain aad sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet aad attendaut aad Rs.1,00,000/- towards niedical expenses after seeiug the documents aad evidence of Dr. Suvimal Datt (AW-2). There is no appeal for enhanceinent. 7. Learaed counsel fo'r the appeUaats has not proved that why the coiapensation should be dimirushed and wUy the State is not responsible for it. He has also not proved that fhe accident took place by some uukaown truck. Therefore, it is clear that fhe driver was responsible for it. 8. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circuiastaiices of fhe case, I am of fhe considered view fhat fhe findiiigs recorded by fhe Tribunal are purely on the basis oflegal, clinchiag aad reliable evidence aad as such I do nbt find any itlegalily or infirmity ia fhe impugned order. 9. Consequently, fhe appeal being devoid ofmerits is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed. R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge