———-—"-' ^? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR risl ^nii M.A. ( C ) N0. 11 v:^-% I 2007 (D.BJ APPELLANT INSURER \ /' Versus RESPONDENTS :1. CLAIMANTS 1 TO 5 2..... ^.y^€.. ,.....•'•5^.^" ^^ ^;y ,^-' y^c 5. OWNER / DRIVER 6.>c ^' <Sie^"''^: National Insurance Co.Ltd., Akash Ganga Complex' Supela, Bhilai. Smt.Sumita Bose, W/o Sandeep Bose, Aged about 31 years, Ruben Bose, D/o Late Sandeep Bose, Aged about 3 years, Ku.Rahel Bose, D/o Late Sandeep Bose, Aged about 10 months, S'.C.BbSe . ^-f-(5. Bose S/o Late Surendra Nath Bose, Aged about 72 years Smt. Sarla Bala Bose, S. (L.fco&^. W/ofe=€.Bose (Mother) Aged about 65 years, All are R/o Ram Nagar Netaji Subhash Bose Road, Bhilai, Tehsil & Distt. Durg-(C.G.) Dr.Sulbha Babre, W/o Not Known, R/o Qr.No.3, F-Russian Complex Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, P.S. - Kotwali Sector-6. \\'\ (2) ^PPE^/^730FraEMOTORVEHICLES ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No. 1178/2007 APPELLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Sumita Bose and others ./i DB:- HON»BLESHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ. PRESENT:- Shri Raj Awashthi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. O R A L Q R D E R (30-9-2010) Per I.M. Ouddusi, J 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 8-3- 2007 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 85/2006 awarding Rs. 7,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 7-11-2004 deceased Sandeep Bose was going to his home frorn Raipur to Bhilai on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07/C-4531. In front ofRam Mandir, Bhilai-3, a Maruti vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07/4,156 being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 6 dashed the motorcycle as a result of which, Sandeep Bose died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants being wife, children, mother and father, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 35 lacs as compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. \'- 3. Learned Tribunal vide impugned award awarded Rs. 7,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants against ..£•:.]:^^- ,v"""., 1 ^SN.| 1 ''i,. :^sv'./ 6. 7. 8. the appellant and the respondent No. 6 jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the First Information Report lodged, the description of the vehicle with which the accident has allegedly taken place was mentioned as Maruti Van whereas in the statement of the witnesses it was mentioned as Maruti Car. We have perused the record of the Tribunal which shows that the F.I.R. was lodged on information received on telephone. The person who has informed the police on telephone about the accident namely eye- witness Sudhir Singh (P.W. 2) came into witness box and stated that he had informed the police by telephone about the number of Maruti Car and he had not mentioned as Maruti Van. It was in fact Maruti Car. If the police official has wrongly written it Maruti Van, he cannot say as to why the same has been written as Maruti Van instead of Maruti Car. Therefore, it cannot be said that the description of the vehicle was said as Maruti Van and not Maruti Car. More over, there cannot be one registration number of two vehicles i.e. Maruti Car and Maruti Van. Therefore, the ground taken in this appeal is not sustainable. No other ground has been raised. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwai Judge p/