HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR {DMSION B’ENcH) CORAM : Hon’ble Shri SR. Nayak, CJ Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. APPELLANTICLAIMANT RESPONDENTSINON- APPLICANTS Versus 1) 2) Rajkumat Patel. aged 32 years, S/o. Harunlal Patel‘ R/o. Vin. Belari, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tahsil & District-Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Suresh Kumar, S/o. Salku Baiga, Agad about 30 years, R/o. Vill. Jyotipur, P.S. Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At present-Near Bhanpur Ramani Pettol Pump Hindustan Transport. P.S. Bhanpur, District Ralpur (C.G.) Rajendra Kumar Saluja, S/o. Shri Anantra‘m Saluja, Rio. Om Complex, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) 4)a. 4)b. 5) The National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch City Branch-2. li-Fior, Movii Mahai, G.T.Road, Raipur. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Tejkor, WdJo. Triloksingh Gandhi, R/o. Pamgarh, P.S. Tahsii Pamarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Satendar Singh, S/o. Late Triioksingh Gandhi, R/o. Pamgarh, P.S. Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Branch Managerppp. High Court, Bilalspur Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Janjgir- Champa.(C.G.) O ORDER (Passer! on 12 - of December 2005) The following Order of the Court was passed by S.R..Nayak, CJ: / ,—/’ ln a personal iniury casa, the MACT having found that me appellant/claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident Occurred on 16.08.99 invoiving the motor vehicie driven by ihe appeiiant himself as we“ as the driver of the truck-trailer insured by Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No. 5 and in causing the accident. both the dirivers contributed negligence, apportioned negligence in the ratio of 3O : 7O and having computed the total entitlement of the appeilant in a sum of Rs. 48,0001- and out of which deducting 30% of the same. ultimately. awarded a sum of Rs. 33,600l-. The argument of the learned counsel for the appeilant is that the MACT is not justified in holding that the appellant too. contributed the negligence in causing the accident. The contention of me ’ learned counsel is not acceptable to us. The MACT in para 14 of the judgment, in great elaboration, has stated the reasons for concluding that the appellant also contributed negligence in causing the accident. lt is seen that the appellant did not exercise due care and caution to avert the accident and if he were to exercise due care and caution, in the facs and circumshnces esmblished in the case. perhaps the accident could have been averted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tindin recorded by the MACT and apportioning the actionable negligence to an extent of 30% on the part of the appellant/driver cannot be faulted with. No other point is urged before us to assail the validity of the impugned award. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as t0 COSTS. ggbb-i