^ @ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH (- ^ AT BILASPUR /2009 vS ^ M.A.ICl No f^ !?.-°.. ° t,tt;4f U *^ APPELLANT (Non-AopUcant No.2l ^ Sabu C.Maithyu S/o C.O. Maithyu, aged about 48 years, R/o Padmanabhpur, „c.l^^?"^ M-LG- 593> Durg (C-G-) ...-•^Sy^.-- (Owner of vehicle No. C.G.- t(^SWS^^>r' 04ZD-8487) ^k.A."'""' yff-" VERSUS RESPONDENTS (Applicant No.ll (Applicant No. 21 ^-3 'r^- 1. Smt. Shyamvati Wd/o Salikram, aged about 40 years RewEU-am Sahu S/o Late Salikram Sahu, aged about 22 years po^ R/o Kumharkhan, P.S.-Gurur, Distt. Durg(C.G.) 3. Kalam KIian S/o Jabbar Khan Musalman, aged about 38 years, R/o Chameli Chowk Dhamtari,Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle No. C.G.-04 ZD-8487) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 (Non-annlicant No. 11 Valuation ofAppeal : Rs. 3, 14,OOO/- HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. fONo. 1252 of 2009 Appellant Sabu C. Maithyu Versus Respondents Smt. Shyamvati & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ @ Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Rahul Soni, Advocates for the appellant. ShriAman Kesherwani, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 25th day ofJanuary, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant (owner of the vehicle) arises froni the award dated 27th August, 2009, passed by fhe Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, District - Durg in Claim Case No. 70/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,14,000/- and fixing liability to inake payinent of compensation upon the owner of the vehicle.i.e. the appellant. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. . The facts, in brief, as projected by the claimants, are that on 7.2.2007 deceased Shalikram along with his colleague Baliram was going on a cycle by the side of the irrigation canal (Nahar - Nali). At that time the non-applicant No.t (Kalam Khan) who was driving the •>. vehicle (Maruti Car 800, bearing registration No. CG 04- ZD/8487) in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle. As a result of this accident Shalikram sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatnient he succumbed to the injuries on 8.2.2007. The matter was reported to the police wherein the offence was registered as Crime No. 99/2007 in Police Station Gurur. The respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants, being widow and son of deceased Shalikram field a claim case under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 10,60,000/- undervarious heads. Learned Clairas Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the vehicle in quesdon was being driven in a rash and hegligent manner, as a result of which, Shalikram died and therefore awarded a sum of Rs. 3,14,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there was no accident took place with the Car of the appellant as the appellant had given the said car for repairing in December, 2006 and he had taken back his car in April, 2007 from the garage of Hemant Kumar Chandrakar at Durg. The accident had taken place on 7th Februaiy, 2007, whereas the F.I.R. was written on 10.4.2007 that is with a delay of two months. Leamed counsel next submits that the appellant's car is Maruti, 800, but in the police-report after four inonths the number of the car has been mentioned as 'Indica: Car' of the same number of the Maruti 800 of the appellant which committed accident. He has also ruendoned that a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police that the owner of some Indica Car has displayed the registration number of the car of the appellant and -.& committed the accident and therefore the appellant should be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 7. The first thing is that there cannot be one registration number for two cars having different engine and chassis numbers. Further, with regard to the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, there is no receipt of the complaint. Merely typing a complaint and filing in the Court would not suffice to make charges unless it proves that it was served upon the Superintendent of Police or his office. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the registration number of the car of the appellant was displayed on another vehicle which committed accident. 8. With regard to the lodging of the FIR it is to be mentioned that the accident had taken place on 7.2.2007 and the deceased died in the hospital on 8.2.2007. Shri R. M. Bhagat, Assistant Inspector, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur made a requisition for postmortem on 9.2.2007 and the postmortem was done on the sarne day. In the •I. F.I.R. the number of the vehicle has been mentioned as CG 04 ZD 8487. The death of the deceased occurred on 8.2.2007 at 3.30 p.m. The cause of death in the post morteni report dated 9.2.2007 was mentioned as cardio respiratory failure due to head injury and its complication. In the MLC death form, issued on 9.2.2007, the date of death was mentioned as 8.2.2007 and the accident had taken place on 7.2.2007. As it was a medico legal case, the irijured - deceased was referred to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries and police sent the dead body for postmortem on 9.2.2007. Though the F.I.R. has not been registered on the sanie date, but in the reference it was mentioned fhat the accident was caused by the Driver of the vehicle and the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned. ;; %sua5s&;» a Wfss^sa, y \'- ''"'" ' • ".' .::? ..-..'' .^' 'll'-v "^y • ";'^t._y-T"->"*' 9. Therefore, the claimants cannot be allowed to sufferer and their claiin cannot be denied on the ground that the police registered the F.I.R. two raonths after. The F.I.R. is nothing but the first information and the police had already received the first inforniation that they got knowledge of death of the deceased in the said accident and referred the body for post niortem. In view of the above discussion it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur "f-.-