m wE am! wag; a? wvmmm A? ggmswa. CHHATIS$ARH Eivisian Banal» FHSCELLAN§EO3§ APPEAL N0. gé ’2 OF 2905 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ‘ MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 /Mst. Yashoda Chouhara WdjoLate Shri Dauram @ Firat Ram Chouhan, aged about 48 yeafs, Ric Vm. RahodJah ?&mgarh3§s§:t; ianjgir-Champ‘a, (Chhattisgarh) AERELLANT; ‘émxMENT VER$U$ RESPONDEW 1 Shrawan Kumar S/o Naman (bRIVER), K Ningh Kanwar, ageé abou; 30 years,Rjo. Viiiage Bundeia P.S. Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir — Champa \ (Chhattisgarh) [Driver af SUzuki No. M.P.25 K-99?23 {OWNER} 5hr: MRSingh S/c‘ Shri / S.R.Singh,aged about 45 yrs. Permanent Address Near Gurunanak Schoo} Dayaibandh, Biiaepur (CG) Present!y at Rahod {Gramin A Bank}, PS. Sheerinarayan Distt.3angir-Champa{C.G.} {oWnergf Suzuki No. M,F,26 K-9972} HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH RT Eil£SPUR DIVISIGN BENCH: HOM’BLE MR. !.M.QUDDUS! &7 HON’BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE AGARWM. JJ. Mi. No.3$2l2005 wm Mst. Yashoda Chouhan Vs Resgondents Shrawan Kumar & others Present: Mr Sanjay " Agaiwai, Advocate with W. Rakesh Pandey, Ad‘wcate for the appehant None for raspyrdem Nn 1 though served Mr A K Athaiey, Advocate for respondent No 3 ‘ ‘(15 Jtédg epggberfzagw) ntfO i1 LWI. Quddusi, J; 1. Heard, 2. The appellant—ciaimant has filed this appeal against the award dated 23.3.2005 passed in Claim Case No.8?!2004 whereby the iearned Motor Actident Ciaims Tribunal, (FTC), Bilsapur (CG) has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellant, who is widow of~ the deceased Dauram, has filed a claim petition before the claims tribunal claiming a' campensation of Rs.1G,29,000f— stating therein that on 23.2.2000 the non-applicant No.1 herein: who was driving the Suzuki Motorcyoie bearing registration No,MP26-k-9972 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased Dauram @ Firatram as a result he sustained injuries on various parts of his body. He was admitted in the local hospital for treatment where he died on 1.3.2000. A report of the incident was aiso lodged in the 'Poiice $tation Shivrinarayan upon which offence under Section 304-A of the {PC was registered and charge sheet was also filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 47. Respondent No,1 & 2 herein filed the joint written statement and denied the averments made by the appellant in the claim petition and in alternative, averted that on the date of incident the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent No.3- lnsurance company and therefore, lf any award ls passed to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. sty- I.M.Quddusi Judge h) .WV i Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge against them, then the Iiabiiity to satisfy the same wiii be on the insurance company. 5. Respondent N0.3-1nsurance Company filed its rep’ly stating . therein that the fact cause of death of the deceased was the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 23.2.2000 does not find corroboration from the postmortem report and thejrefore, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation and claim petition deserves‘to be dismissed. 6. The claims tribunal, after considering the issues framed by it, found that the appellant failed to establish that the non- apph‘ucant Not-driver was driving the offending in a rash and negligent manner and further that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident and therefore, dismissed the claim petition. 7. We: have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as aiso the record of the claims tribunal. 8. From perusal of the postmortem report it is evident that the cause of death of the deceased was not the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 23.2.2000. Further, the appellant has faiied to examine the doctor, who has allegedly given treatment to the deceased, before the claims tribunal. Thus, it is apparent that the appetlant has not able to prove that the non-applicant by driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent caused the accident and due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the said accident, he died. 9. In view of above, we see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned award passed by the claims tribunal concerned. .10. ln the result, the appeal has no substance, the same deserves