THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH ^ (, AT - BILASPUR M. A. (C»N0. /^4 3 /2009 APPELLANT: Ram Pyare Sahu, aged 40 years, son of Shri ^.Jagdish Sahu, resident of Tendubhata, O.P. •/- 'y^ ^ -Ci.. ^-^ <^CT-^^^ Naila, P.S./tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa ^..-ri?®"'"" (C-G-)- ^y ^'~'/' ^ VERSUS fAoalicant/clmmant/drivert ^ ^ RESPONDENTS: (1) Murlidhar Sahu, aged 65 years, son of Shri Shiv Bagas Sahu, resident of village Khaira, O.P. Naila, P.S./tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). (Owner) (2) The United India Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, R. B. Traders, Fu-st Qoor, Stadium road, T.P. Nagar Korba (C.G.). (Insurer) APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. ••*"f- . ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. {Q No. 1263 of2009 Appellant Ram Pyare Sahu Versus Respondents Murlidhar Sahu & aaother APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACTJ.988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Somnafh Verma, Advocate for the appellaut. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed oa this 18& day ofNovember, 2009) Per Satlsh K. Agnihotri J. Heard. 1. The iastant appeal arises fawi tfae award dated 25.7.2009, passed by fhe Second Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal (P.T.C.), Janjgir m Claim Case No. 50/2009. 2. The claim of the appellaiit/claimani' before the Tribunal was that on 4.3.2008, iu the capacily ofdriver, he was driving the vehicle Tractor-Trolley, bearmg registoration No. C.G. 11/6563. At about 3.00 a.in., when he was retumiug 6-om. village Pondi after zinloading paddy, at vill^e Sarkhon, near caaal, the veliicle got out of control and turaed topsy-turvy, as a result, fhe appellant/claimaat received grievous iajuries. Thus, the appeUaat/cIainiaut filed a claim. case for grant of conipensation to the tune ofRs. 5,78,095/-. 3 . Leamed counsel appearing for fhe appeUaiit/c]aim.aat submits that the respondents have faUed to prove before the Tribiuial that fhe appeUant was not having a valid aad effective driving Ucence aad the vehicle was used for fhe purpose, other than the agriculture purpose. 4. Leamed counsel furfher submits fhat witness Daulat Ram., who was sittuig on fhe bonnet of the tractor at the tirne of accideut, has categoricaUy stated that iu order to save a cow, the appeUaat/clamiant pressed the brake at once, fhat is why fhe vehicle got out of control and accyent took place. The owner of the vehicle i.e. the respondent No.l Tnmsrif admitted that the appeUaat/claimant was workhig as driver of the vehicle in '' ,•.. . . • question and he was having the efifecti.ve aud vaUd driving licence. ^s^sy^ f-^ The driviag licence was produced by the appeBant/clahnant as Ex.N.A.-4C, which was believed by the Tribunal. Thus, the disinissal of fhe claim by fhe Tribunal is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes oflaw. 5. We tiave heard leamed counsel aad perused the docuinents appended thereto. 6. It appears fhat fhe respondent No.l, bwner offhe vetucle did not support the version ofthe appellflitt/clainiaat, according to whom., he was driver of fhe vehicle of the respondent No. 1 and on fhe fateful day he went to viUage Pondi to supply paddy. 7. The respondent No.2/Insuraace Company denied the version of the appeUant/claiinant aad subinitted that the vehicle was used for fhe purpose other than ^ricultural purpose, thus there was breach of the iasurance poUcy. It was also stated fhat the appeUaat/claimaat was hot having fhe valid and efifective driving licence. The driver of the vehicle i.e. the appeUant/claimant hiinsetf was driving fhe vehicle in a rash and negUgent manner, fhus the respondent No.2 was not Uable to pay auy coinpensation. 8. The clauu of fhe appeUant was rejected by fhe Tribunal on ftie groitad that the appellaitt/claunaat was driving fhe vehicle in a rash aad negligent luaiiner, as a result ofwhich fhe accident had taken place. The appeUant/claimant is not entitled to get any coiapensatiou for his own lapses. 9. Haviug heard learaed couasel appearfng for fhe parties aad having perused fhe pleadiags and original documents avaUable iu fhe record of fhe Tribunal, it is evident that the appeUaat/ claimaat himself was driviag the vehicle in rash aad negligent ruanner, thus he is not entitled for any conipensation. 10. The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the impugaed award are uiiexceptionable aud do not suffer froin aay irregularity and illegality. The Tribimal has properly considered aU fhe eyidences aud has com.e to just conclusion. , 11. For fhe reasons afore-stated, we are of the view that no iaterference is wan-auted wifh the unpugued award and as such, fhe appeal is disinissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- §j/. N-K.Agarwal ^ST SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Judge \'