<.^ f' APPELLANTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.6.) M.A. rc^ Np.9^c? /2009 'ONgjon R^w Anupa Bai, Wd/o. Late Biselal Sahu, aged about 36 years, Rajaram Sahu, S/o. Late Manrakhan Sahu, aged about 70 years Urila Bai, W/o. Rajaram Sahu, aged about 65 years Durgesh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Late Biselal Sahu, aged about 18 years :1. 2. 3. 4. .^^" ^<^ ^..•••••" 5. 6. Khilesh Kumar, S/o. Late Sahu, aged about 16 years Biselal <^' ^' RESPONDENTS (••' f-25 Ku. Sita @ Shital, aged about 14 years, D/o. Late Biselal Sahu, caste- Teli, No.5 & 6 minors, through natural guardian mother Anupa Bai, Wd/o. Late Biselal Sahu All R/o. Village-Selud, Post Selud, P.S. Utai, Tahsil-Patan, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Jignesh Kumar Patel, S/o. Ganga Ram Patel, aged about 30 years, R/o. Kanchan Bag Qtr. 156 Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ramesh Panjawani, S/o. Harish Panjawani, R/o. Vijay Agency Jai Stambh Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^^ 3.n National Insurance Company Limited, Main Office-3, Midilton Street Kalkatta 700071 Through : Djvisional Manager, Divisional Office Akash Ganga Parishar Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Bhilai (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT SAME IN THE PRESENT APPEAL Rs.9,99,000/- Nil Rs.9,99,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A. (Cl No. 969 OF of2009 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Anupa Bai and others Versus Jignesh Kumar Patel and others DIVISION BENCH:- Hon. Shri Satish K. Agnihotri and Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ r PRESENT: Shri Avinash Chandra Sahu, Advocate, for appellants. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for respondent 1. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (16-11-2009) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J 1. This appeal arises from the awa.rd dated 23-1-2009, passed by the VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Durg in Claim Case No. 9/2008. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellants/claimants are father, mother, wife and children of the deceased Biselal Sahu, who died in an accident on 27-10-2007. The appellants/claimants filed a claim case for compensation on the ground that on 17-10-2007, deceased Biselal along with his wife Anupa Bai and daughter Ku. Seeta alias Shital was going from village Selub to Dongargarh on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-07-G-4357, as soon as they reached near village Dundera Dongargarh, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 ZE-4154 coming from behind driven by Jignesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle driven by the appellant No. l?s husband, Biselal from the back side, as a result of which, all the three persons fell down and sustained injuries. Biselal sustained grievous injuries on his head and on other parts of the body. Anupa Bai was also hit by unknown Sumo vehicle. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon by police patrolling party where Biselal died. 3. In reply, the respondent No. 1 denied involvement of Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 ZE-4154 in the accident and submitted that when respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of above motorcycle was going for Devi Darshan, seeing Biselal ^.nd members of his family fallen on the ground, he stopped there for their help. In fact, the accident occurred by unknown Sumo vehicle. The respondent No. 2 also denied the involvement of the above motorcycle in the accident and submitted that on the date of accident, he was not the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 ZE-4154. The respondent No. 3 submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident occurred with a Sumo vehicle. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties and the material brought on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove negligent and rash driving by the respondent No. 1 and also that the respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the motorcycle, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to get any compensation from the respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the original documents filed before the Tribunal, it appears that the claimant/appellant No. 1 has not stuck to one statement. She has changed her statement at every place. In the First Information Report to the police, she stated that after her deceased husband herself and her daughter fell on the road, some unknown vehicle Sumo hit them and caused injuries. Before the Court, her stand was contrary to the earlier stand that the appellant No. 1, her husband and daughter Ku. Sita was not hit by any other vehicle but by Hero-Honda motor cycle driven by the respondent No. 1, Jignesh Kumar. However, she firstly stated that she did not know to operate mobile phone but thereafter, she clarified that she pushed one button and she was connected to the police station. The PW/1, i.e. the claimant/appellant No. 1 has further stated that there was heavy darkness and it was not possible for her to know the number of the motor-cycle as well as she also did not know the number of the motor cycle driven by her deceased husband. 6. The case of the respondent No. 1 was that his motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG-08-ZE-4154 did not meet with any accident on that date, he was going to Dongargarh Temple and he found that some persons were lying on the ground injured. He also stopped the motor-cycle and helped the injured persons in boarding them in a vehicle, wherein his mobile phone fell on the ground which he could not collect being deep darkness. The respondent No. 1 had produced the documents in support of his contention that the motor-cycle on that date did not meet with any accident as there was no damage on any part the motor-cycle. 7. It has already been found established that Ramesh Panjwani was not the owner of the vehicle as he has sold the said vehicle to some other person which was being driven by Jignesh Kumar Patel, and accordingly, entry was also made in the registration papers. The real owner of the said vehicle was not impleaded as a party-respondent. Pathak/Amit 8. Looking from all angles and having regard to the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, the appellants have miserably failed to establish that Biselal Sahu died due to the accident caused by motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG-08-ZE-4154 driven by Jignesh Kumar Patel. Thus, the impugned award dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Durg, is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference. 9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ...p":