c- fi IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0- ^f?/^' 0^3888==*^ (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL TJNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEfflCLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT Basant Kumar Sahu, S/o Rama NON APPLICANT No. 02 Ram Sahu aged about 41 years, NON-CLAEVIANT No. 02 R/o Village- Tipani, Tahsil- Kumd, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 'Z^.lo.&'" „ s •^^'y:^-\-^' f^^fl ,..—--/'"'/!...ft5/i^/-A-' ^^h!. ^•^c£6" RESPONDENT (Registered Owner of vehicle Tractor Trolly bearing registration No. C.G. 04 ZQ/3559/3560) CLAIMANT/ APPLICANT VERSUS 01. Indrajeet Sahu, S/oKamta Ram Sahu, aged about 19 years, R/o Village- Tipani, Tahsil- Kumd, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). RESPONDENT - NON APPLICANT No.Ol NON-CLAIMANT No.02 02. Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Rama Ram Sahu aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Tipani, Tahsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Appeal Value at - Rs. 36,750/- .^ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR I.A.(C)No.31Sof2009 NON-ftPPLICANT No.2 RESPONDENTS Basant Kumar Sahu Versus 1. Indrajeet Sahu & another. APPEAL U/S 173 QFTHEJWQTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 ISinale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri S. Pandya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajendra Patet, counse! for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2. (Passed on 18th day of January, 2010) This (s owner's appeal against the award dated 15-09-2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal) in claim case No.208/2007 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.36,750/- has been awarded atong with interest @ 6% per annum and cost of the proceeding at Rs.1500/- to the ciaimant Indrajeet Sahu against the owner and driver of the vehicle, payable jointly and severally. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: On 19-01-2007, the ctaimant was sitting on the mudguard of tractor-trolley bearing registration No. C.G.-04 ZQ/3559/3560 on the direction of driver of the said tractor-trolley, the said tractor-trolley was jumping up and down and due to that the claimant fell down and his left leg was fractured in the said accident. 3. The claimant filed an application under Sedion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs.12,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him agalnst the driver apd owner ofthe said tractor-trolley. The appellant and the driver of the said tractor-trolley denied their liability by fiting their written statement and submitted that the said accident occurred due to the claimant's own negligence. The claimant examjired himself 2 as AW-2 and also examined the Doctor Iqbal Parvez. The appellant and the driver also examined two wltnesses. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held that the driver of the said tractor-trolley was responsible for the safd accident; appellant Is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant and awarded Rs.36,750/- as compensatlon to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 5. Learned counsel appearfng for the appellant would submit that the said accident was occurred due to the claimant's own negligence and, therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant supported the award impugned and submitted that said award has been passed, based on clinching and cogent evidence and does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard tearned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugned and the recordsofthe Tribunal. 8. Undisputedly, the said accident occurred on 19-01-2007 and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. The claimant stated in his deposition that on the direction of the driwr of the tractor-troitey, he was sittlng on the mudguard of the tractor; due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, he fell down from the traetor-troltey and sustained the injuries. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he has not examined the driver of the said tractor-trotley. The witnesses Heman Lal Chakradhari and Bhfma Sahu examined by appellant, had stated in their examination in chief that the claimant Jumped from the tractor-trolley and then sustained injuries. Whereas, in the cross- examination when asked whether or not the claimant sustained injurfes due to jumping up and down of the Tractor near speed breaker, they coutd not malntain their statement which they have deposed in their examination in-chief. - - Kw 9. tn view of the above, based on the evidence adduced by both the parties, the tearned Tribunal has rightty held responsible the driver of the tractor-trolley for the said accident and rightty awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant and no fault can be found in It. 10. In view of foregoing, l do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the appeltant. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. gd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge o'