I ^J^ 1 ^^^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR Mjsceilaneoys Appeal (C) N0,573 of2Q09 APPELLANTS/: (Claimants) 1. Smt. Prasuti Bai W/o Late Suresh Singh Thakur, aged about 38 years; 2. Smt. Shyamali Singh, aged about 20 years, Widow of Late Shravan Singh; 3. Moolchand @ Ashok Singh Thakur S/o Late Suresh Singh Thakur, aged about 17 years; Minor through her natural guardian Mother Prasuti Bai. 4. Malikram' Singh S/o Ghasi Singh Thakur, aged about 70 years; All R/o Village^ Ghoramar, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Yusuf Khan S/o Usman Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Behind Masjid, Kela Badi, Durg (C.G.). 2. Proprietor, Navin Transport 4 Industrial Area, Dhamda Road, Durg (C.G.). 3. The Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office Station Road, Durg (C.G.). {Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988} Pj-esent: Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appetlants. Mr.SudhirAgrawat, counsel for respondent No.3. RESPONDENTS: Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.L. J hanwar, JJ ORAL ORDER (17-6-2010) 1. By this appeal the appellants have chailenged the award dated 27-8- 2008 passed by the 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short 'the Claims Tribunai') in CIaim Case No.262/2007 dismissing the claim case filed on behalfofthe appellants. 2. Award is impugned on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence sufficient for drawing inference that the .-^ rsj '^;lte^^- ^^•^y \ respondents are liable for payment of compensation on account of the death ofSuresh. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on the fateful day of 18-3-2007 Suresh (since deceased) was travelling on motorcycle along with otherpersons, motorcycle was dashed by the offending bus of respondent No.2 driven by respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.3, and as a result of such accident Suresh died. Legal representatives of Suresh had filed claim case for Rs.26,96,000/- on account of the death of Suresh. Respondents No.1 & 2 have not contested the claim and proceeded ex-parte. Respondent No.3 has contested the claim and has denied the allegation made in the claim case. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case on the ground that the appellants have failed to establish the fact that the vehicle owned by respondent No.2 and driven by respondent No.1 has caused the accident. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3, perused the award and record of the Claims Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that this isa beneficial legislation and the Courts are required to take liberal view to award compensation to the claimants and do not dismiss the claim on the ground of technicalities. In the present case, the evidence of Jaikaran Singh (AW-2) who is present on the place of incident is sufficient for drawing inference that number of the offending vehicle was CG-07/ZA-0438 and the same is owned by respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondeht No.3 opposed the appeal and submitted that this is a case of absolutely no evidence and the appellants have not adduced any evidence to connect the vehicle with the accident. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the pari:ies, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf ofthe parties; 9. The appellants have examined Jaikaran Singh (AW-2) as substantive evidence. As per his evidence, he was present at the time of incident Soma and he has lodged the report. Copy ofthe report Ex.P-1 reveals that the offending vehicle was the bus of Durg Roadways. But in his evidence, he has deposed that he came to know afterwards that the number of bus is-CG-07/ZA-0438. In para 4 of his cross-examination he has specifically deposed that he came to know the number of bus from the passenger sitting in the bus. This shows that he himself has not seen the number of the bus, but he came to know from other persons who were sitting in the bus. For this purpose, he is an hearsay witness. 10.The claimants have not examined those passengers who were sitting in the bus or the person who has seen the incident when the accident caused by the aforesaid bus. In absence of any such evidence, it Js difficult to hold that the aforesaid bus No.CG-07/ZA-0438 was the offending vehicle and has caused accident causing the death of Suresh. '11.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case of the appellants. On close scrutiny we are of the view that the Ctaims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim case. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. 12.Advocate fees as per schedule. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge