a‘stl,Patan, Dlstt Durg (CG) Versus Pradeep uimar Mandal S/ol ‘ " Laxman Man‘dal R/o RaJa Bastl’ O Sukhachar, P S Khurada 2 resen " - RESPONDEN 35 present Address— M/ “matharr ’nglneermg § Works 'Durg CG A, ( ) owner of vehlcle No WB 25/6145 r ’ Assurance Co Bh11a1 Power ouse, D1stt ’EDurg (C “ ‘1 al‘: n the award dated 2 4 2006 passed by Xllth Addltlon APPELLANT " Manlkpun, S/o' ' w APPLICANT A , an1kpur1, Aged 36;, {Th . P 4 pt v orksgDurgJCG (Dnver of veh1 ardar o WB HarprJt 25/61450 Smgh (ex parte) S/o H Sm ‘ I r TS; 7 ‘ ‘W clej , , r. ":-"‘SN gh‘: u fE ' 7 H G) ’ corr on for property loss 1n the sald acc1dent agams I the drlver owner and msurer of the offendmg vehlcle iiééri l t ’ ,‘iLearned Trlbunal on a close s ny of the ev1dence led materlal placed and submlssmns made held responden ‘no 1 respons1ble for the sald acc1dent and awarded Rs 50 OOO/— f as compensatlon for the loss suffered by th l appellant 1n the sald acc1dent { that learned Tnbunal has erred 1n award1n low compensauon I have heard learned counsel for t e appellant and erused V the 1mpugned award ew v : Learned Trlbunal con31d _ allable on \record has rlghtly held appellant faJled to prove property I d; I ‘8 by examlnlng 1ts author Shr1 T1war1 learned counsel for thj appellant would subm1t loss to the extent prayed for by{ adducmg cogent an ‘ chnchlng ev1dence therefor and by provmg document Ex " ,out any 111ega11ty or pervers1ty 1n the above f1nd1ng recorde ' y the Trlbun ' 1 V :Courtpl'ea Jawardln f r rejectlng he rema ’fIFor the foregomg _ I deserves to be and 1s hereby dISmlssed at adm1ss10n stage 1 bemg dev01d of substanc J J \ N.K.Agarwal 'Sd/- _ Judge c , If t-L3 x g e: g : 1 p } P~ ' V E‘ , d: b al “ - w m - r: L 7 g 1 t 1 , i I, a e ‘