6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR -<« M.A.(C.) No...:.^.»..../2009 AppeUant : Mohd. Junaid Meman S/o Yunus 1 '2-.I.S/1 »^~} Meman, Aged aljout 34 years, '("'1^~^< ;..->-^".5<-^"'"^ ^ R/° ward No.9,Mahasamund, -'"'.%.WK ""^".\-^'-" District Mahasamund (C.G.j •^ '?" i.i^-'V ' ^»•>.°» Respondents : Versus ^--1) Ishwar lal Chandrakar S/o Krishna Kuinar Chandrakar, Aged. about 37 years, R/o viUage Paloud, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of alleged Mini Bus No. CG-04/E/0199 ) 2) Haradhan Dey S/o Late Shri N.C. Dey, R/o Mana Camp Raipur District liaipur (C.G.) (Owner of alleged Miai Bus No. CG- 04/E/0199) 3) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Main Branch Office, Madina Building Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of aUeged Jeep No. CG-04/ZA/2331 ) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR COMPENSATION AWARD 1. Compensation Claimed -2. Claim Awarded 3. Appeal Valued Rs.5, 00,000/- -" Nil Rs. 5,00,OOO/- -ff— HICai COCTCT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASB»UR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUM>U8I & Hoa'Me G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AtCt »o.3S5/2009 APPBLLANT: RESPONDBKT8: Mohd. Junaid Mentaa Vs. Ishwar Lal Chaadcakar & others A MISC. APPBAL UNDBR SBCHON 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. J.S.P. Chaadrasen, counscl fer the appellant Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, coiinsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent no.3. ORALOM®R pl.06.2011) Per I.M. OUDDIIFSI. J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Iiisuraace Coinpaay ^ainst tlie iinpugned award dated 22.12.2008 passed by fhe Ist Additional Motor Accident 'Clgims Tribuaal, Mahasanauad, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G) in Claun Case , No.42/2007 dismissmg fhe claim of fhe appeUaat who is atlegedly aa iajured pcrson ia the accidcnt in questioa which took place on 21. 12.2005. 3. Brief facts of the case as pcr the version of claimant are fhaton 21.12.2005 the claimaat was retumu^ fixiia Raipur by sitting ia Mmi Bus bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-E/0199. When fhe bus reached at fhe tiu-aing of Kharota pond, a Jeep bearing Rega.No.C.G.04 ZA/2331 was comiag towards .Mahasamuud and there was head ou coUision between the two veUcles, as a result ofwhich claimaat sustained iajuiy and his nasal bone was fi'actured. He was admitted ia Govt. Hospital Mahasainund for ta?eatment. Thereaftcr be was admitted ia RamakrishDa Hospital, Raipur where his nose was operated. He has fited claua petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total compensatiDn of Rs.5,00,000/ - on various heads. 3. Learaed Claiins Tribunal bas framed Isaue no.l whefher the Mini Bus No.C.G.04-E/0199 aBegedly driven by respondeut no.l ia a rash aad ncgllgeat Baaaner cteshed fhe Jeep and caused injuries to the deoeascd. It has aaswered (he said issue ui iiegatwe. 4. We have heard learaed couasel for the partics also perused the records. have 5. The appellant has examiaed himself as A.W. 1. He stated ia his evidence that whcn he was travelmg ia Minl Bus finia Ralpur to Mahasainuzid, on the way aear Kharora Talab fhere was head on coUusion between the Miai Bus and a Jeep, as a result of which, Iiis Nasal bone was fl'actured and he had undergone operation fer fhree tunes and still he is feciag problein ia takiag breath. However, the atoresaid version of ttie claimant was not supported by the FIR Ex.P. 1 filed on behalf of appeUant. A perusal of fhe FIR Ex.P.1 clearly shows that the iiaines of inauy injured persons were inentioned in fhe FIR but the aanie of , appcUaat Mohd. Juaaid does not find place. AU the mjured persons were brought to fhe Govt. Hospitel for treatment where two persons iiamely Gulam Akbar and Krishna '•^Xi^ iswsse''"" + 7. Kumar Dwivedi died. Hence, the oral evidenee of appcBaat (A.W. 1) is refated by thc FIR (ExP. 1). Thcrefore, it is pioved fhat appeUaat Mohd. Junaid was not iajured ia fhc said accident. fn casc he recewed any injiuy, his naaie should have been laentioned in tiie P.I.R. Further, in the k>wer Court record, we have found only the fiist inedical treatment sUp of 30th December,2005 whereas the accident took place on 21st Deceinber. No document regardiag his inedical examination between 21.12.2005 and 29-12.05 tias been filed or ahown. TheTcfore, on fhis ground also, fhe claimant could not estebHsh fhat he was also one ofthe iajured persons in fbe accident in qucstion. In view of the above, wc are of fhe opindon fhat fhere is no good ground to iaterfere wifli fhe findiaigs of tfae TribunaL Ttus appeal is misconccived and is accordiagly dismissed. No order as to costs. ^^=— Rao SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhaiuddin Judge ^' I ^^s^f/^^^ £! ^^^^^^^^g^s8^^.-?iy~~''~