.--0'<;'-W/^-^\^'Vi^-^'u'Vi-.'Vli>U'i;'t;-u;^;l-.-V;\- ^t'^.-..^^*,^^V-i^^^-^-y,^! m ^•'^u^-u^^'^^^^•u^u^'v^'u^^ :,;.,i::.B/;fes.^.^ ilorftileD.B. llNilHE.'Ha^M^COUin'^itHi-llBlisiAI^ it^^i^ :^MISC^APPEAI-l.f€^No^--^-l:/2007;' ^flPEI..LANTS^ lIMANTSs ^s^ ^^-^•^ '••^ y/y: >/C^?I.^ !SPONDENTS/ -APPLIGANTS: ^^Madwi Pal^^A^ Madvi^^^D ^Agecl^a,bout..5l5;';¥ealrsl::::!;• ' .i-."./'':1'-"'..;':'1-.' •1:^', . >2.^MadviSukacii,W/oLateH(dma, Aged about 50 Years, j Both R/o Village Barsepas, Thana Sukma, DistrJGt Dantewada (C.G.)| -MEfisys.'.,',- I,'.II:^L-',. l^-'KuraFnl ©sngaram^ i ; S/dl^yararn Kurami, R/<)iDhobanpal,^^ Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) (QwnerQftheoffendingVehicle) ^lle Newlndia Insurance^ompanyLtd. Throughtthe Branch Manager, N^arJhankar Talkre^, Jaipur rOad/Jagdalpur CC.G.) APPEALUNDERSEGTIONt730FMOTORVEHI€I-EACT1988 ^ 1 'fl JJ I 1 II :1 1 ! '; f7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mphan Shrivastava, JJ- Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants M.A.{C)No.543of2007 Madvi Pali and another Versus Kurami Gangaram [Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] ^.?,. t-. "'^^L Present:' ShriAlok Dewangan, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, courisel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on thisXd day of May, 2011) Perl.M.QUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been flled against theimpugned award dated 24-01-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (hereinafter ^ referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Cas^ No.129/2005, dismissing the claim petition preferred by the claimants. 2. Brief facts of thecase are that on 07-02-2004, deceased Madvi Deva along wjth hispartner Kuharami Hidma after attending the function in the residenceof Lakhpara Rokel was returning to Village Varseras at about 1 A.M., while driving the Suzuki Motorcycle bearing Registration NO.C.G.18-B/3822 of respondent No.1, on the way, due to sudden failure of Head Light of the motorcycle, motorcycle went out of his control and dashed with the Mahua Tree on the side ofthe road and thus accident occurred. As a result, Madvi Deva and Kuharami Hidma received severe \^- ' injury and both of them die^at the spot. The matter was reported to the Police •\. -^; X1 ''tM ^M^ .t^ IIfi9i's x '^. •'a: ^iilT If1 ^ A 'n^ - 2-- IS Station Kukanarby the Uncleofthe deceased-Madvi Deva.The deceasedwas an agriculturistandearningRs.5,000^ ( . . . '. • ' •• •••'•.•' '• ! • • . \ 3. VideClaimCaseNo. 129/2005, theclaimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award Qf a total compensation of Rs.21,70,000/- undervarious heads. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal havirig regard to the fasts situation and the evidence on record held that the claimants are not entitled for an award of ^ ,v ^iCompensation and dismissedthe claim petition. Hence this appeal. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. 6. The deceased had borrowed the motorcycle from its owner.'He was not having any valid and effective driving license, as n0 evidence was adduced. However, the deceased/driver of the motorcycle was the representative of the owner, who was his brother-in-law. The Insurance Company has not been held ^ liableto paycomp ofanyeyewitness and it has also not been proved that there was any wrongful act or negligence or caretessness on thepart ofthe non-applicants. t. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of thelconside no case for interference in the findings given by the concemed Tribunal, is called for. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No oi-der as to costs. Sd/- ' . LM.Quddusi^ Judge v Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane