^ss&i^^^SS^^- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fCI No. ya /2010 ^.. m e©ii ARRELLANTS: CLAIMANTS ^- s^ ^ y ;^ »' ^^ ^ ? ^ ..•"'"< •' v •^ 1. Deviram Dhruw S/o Shri Bislal Dhruw Aged about 52 years 2. Kavali Bai W/o Deviram Dhruw Aged about 49 years Both Appellants R/o Ring Road, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur,(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: N6N-APPLICANTS 1. Erawat Singh Madhukar S/o Bohran Ram Aged about 32 years R/o Dhuha P.0. Maraud, Tehsil Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) United India Insurance Company Limited. Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 O^MOTOR VEH1CLE ACT. 1988 COMPENSATION. :\ HKH COURT OF CHHATTISSAftH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE ttR. I.rt.QU&DUSI d HON'BLE ftR.NAWAL KISHORE MSMWAL 33. AooeNants Resnondents M.A.fcl No.898/2010 Oeviram bhruw A another Vs Erawof Singh Modhukor A another Present: AAr. Satyendra Sohu, Advocote for theappellants. Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocofe for respondenf No.l. Mr. Srikumflr Agorwal, Sr. Adv. with AAr. Anand 6upta, Adv. for respondent No.2. ORDER fOraU C26th Nowinber. ZOl® I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. The appellants have filed this miscellaneous appeal ngainst the award dated 24.12.2008 pcssed by the learned 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rnipur (for short *the tribunar) in Claini Cose No.53/2008 dismissin9 the clairn petition of the claimonts/appellants. 2. Brjef facts of the case ore thaf on 11.2,2008 crt- obout 5.00 am. in the morning deceosed AAukesh Kumar Dhruv wss coming to Villnge Sovihdpur from Village Koreha on the motorcycle bearing registration number C605/C/4086, owned A msured by the respondent Np.l and the appeflant herein respectively. When he reached near ffovindpur pond, his niotorcycle cpttided with the brklge os aresutt of which he sustained grievous injyries on his head and chest and he died instantaneously. The claimants, who are old parent^ of the deceased, have filed clairn petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking ciompensation of Rs.26,25,000/- for the nccidental death of their son on various grounds. 3. The tribunal on the pleadingsofthe parties frcroed various issues ond aftec henring the arguments of respective parties nnd takjng jnto consideration the evidence brought on record,hos decided all the issues agajnst the ctaimontand dismissed the claim petition. ' '"•s ^R7 'asc 4. Since there is delay of 505 days in yeferrmg the instcnt appeal, as reporf-ed by the office, we have first considered the question of condoning the detay, 5. After going through the reasons assigned by the appellants in the opplication for condonatjon of delay, we ore of the opinion that the appellants have failed to exploin the delay satisfactory. Even otherwise, pn merits also there is no prima facie case in favour of the nppellants os the deceased himself wos driving the niotorcycle ond thereby stepped into the shoes of •owner of the vehicle and therefore he cannot be treoted os third pqrty. Furt'her, in the insurnnce policy also only third party risk was covered and the risk of owner wus not covered. 6. In view of the above, no interference is required in the impU9ned awnrd arxl the application for condonotion of deloy as also the appeol is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. - Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge