^SS^^^uss^^^^^&^&S^^SS^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC) No lnH\ / 2011 Divlel APPELLANTS/ fADplicants) t« v^^^ -5^r 1. Smt. Shivkumari Singh Wd/o Late Shri Kamata Singh, aged about 55 years, 2. Jitendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Kamata Singh, aged about 29 years, Both are resident of Chandranagar Kohaka Bhilai, Police Station- Supela, Distt.- Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ fNon-Applicants') 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Nathuni Gupta, aged about - 32 years, R/o Subhash Chowk Padrana, Distt.- Khushinagar (U.P.). (Driver of Tata 407 Vehicle No. U.P./ 32/T/7128) 2. Jile --Singh S/o Shri Surajmal, aged about-45 years, R/o <<*~ Sahibabad, Police Station- Link Road, Distt.- Gajiyabad (U.P.). (Owner of Tata 407 Vehicle No. U.P./ 32/T/7128) •-'* i^.^mm^SSSasSlsssvSEiasSSS^S^SSc. fc ^ 3. The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Near Power House Bus Stah'd, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt.- Durg (C.G.). (Insurer of Tata 407 Vehicle No. U.P./ 32/T/7128) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^ „/ _c^ cy- f'- k HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RE8PONDBNTS: M.AIC]. No. 1041/2011 Siut. Sbivkuinan Siagh and aaother Vs. Vijay Kiunar Gupta and another MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECnON 173 OF THE MOTOR^VEH!Ci^8 ACT^J.988 Appearance: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, counsel for fbe AppeUants. Mr. Virendra Kumar, counsel for respondent no.3. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (09.12.2011) This appeal has been filed by the Claimants against the unpugned award dated 12.08.2011 passed by fhe First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, (C.G) ia Claiia Case No.79/2009 disinissing fhe claun offhe appeUants. The facts of the case as per tbe version of the claunaats are fhat on 02.05^2009 at about 1.30 a.m., deceased Birendra F'ratap Siagh along-wifh his fiieud F'iatoo Dey was going on Motorcycle (LML Freedomj bearmg Regn.No. J.H. 05/E/0624 <1*~ {row. Gajiyabad to DeUu. When they reached ia ftoat of H.I.B.Cyt, Sector 62, Noida, District Gajiyabad (UP), one Tata Veliicle bearing No.U.P.32-T/7128 which was beiug driwen by non-applicanf^no. 1 iu rash and negUgent maiiner has suddenly stopped without showiug any iudication due to which the S!fl M' l^. INNI^ 4. niotorcvcle dashed the sald Tata truck fix>in baek side and thereby the accident occurred. Consequently, the deceased sustamed grievous injuries aad died pn fhe way when he was being brought to the hospital. At the tiine of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years old aad was workiag as Lauce Nayak io. S.H.G.D. BattaUon. He was drawing a uionthly salaiy of Rs.13,893/-. The claiinants being dependents/legal representatives have filed Claun Petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total conipensation of Rs.57,95,000/-. Leamed Claims Tribuxial has disiaissed ttie claun petition holdiag that it is not proved fhat Vehicle beariag Regn.No.U.P.32/T/7128 was involved in the accident, but the deceased died due to accident; there was coiaplete rash and negUgence on the part of deceased who was rider of fhe motorcycl& No. J. H/ E-0624. We have penised the Lower Court Records aad found that fhe piUion rider Pintoo Dey entered into witaess box as A.W. 1 aiid has stated that Tata Truck was goiag with a speed of 60 Kins. per hour, one car was going behiud the said Tata vehicle aad their niotorcycle was behiad tfae car. The car had gone ahead by overtakiag the Tata vehicle. However, he has stated that the distance between fhe motorcycle and Truck was 4-5 fit., and the speed of fbe inotorcyclewas 45 jfans. The techiucal iaspection report of the motorcycle shows the negligent driving of fhe deceased as Sxint show fuel tank, bofh sides peiial and itulometer all were damaged. Steermg was damaged. Cluteh flt lever was damaged. HeadUght and iadicator of front side were atl damaged. Therefore, the finding given by the Claixus SttO Tribunal that the deceased, who was driver of the motorcycle, was negUgent caanot be ovemiled aad fherefore, we do not find any good grozind warra.atiag interference in the impugned award. 5. In fhe result, the appeal faUs and is dismissed. No order as to costs. % Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge .<<*••'