‘\v:>~ HIéH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISéARH: BILASPUR i Single Bench i Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar' Shrivasfuva, J. Misc Appeal No.1183 of 2003 5urendra Singh, 5/0 Sufal Ram, Casfe 60nd, aged abouf 25 year‘é, Occupafion Agricul‘rur‘e & Labour, k/o Village Appelian‘l' Annapurna, PS Premnagar, Tahsil Surqjpur', Disff— Surguja (C6) Versus Presem' :- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for fhe appellant Shri Uf‘lam Pandey, counsel for lhe respondenl-s. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16.01.2007) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act“) has been filed against the award dated 15.10.2003 passed by Vlth Additional Motor Accident Elaim Tribunal, SurguJ'a Respondenfs : 1. Sunjay Toppo, 5/0 Imanuel foppo, aged abou? 30 years, R/o Village Kanchanpur, PS Premnugar, Tah.5ur‘ajpur, DisH.$urguja (CG) (Driver) 2. (A) Dhar'msahay Toppo, 5/0 Lafe Imanuel Toppo, aged abou’r 55 year's, 'R/o Village Sarga, P5 Si’rapur, Disff- Surguja (CG) (B) Niranjan Kumar' Toppo, 5/0 Late Imanuel Toppo, aged abou‘r 45 years "DyJaHer" Bilaspur (C6) (C) Sanjay Toppo, s/o Late Imanuel Toppo, aged abou’r 30 years, R/o Village Kanchanpur‘, Disff.5urguja (CG) (héncefor‘fh "fhe Tribunal") vide which claim of fhe appellam for compensafion award has been rejecfed. 2) Briefly sfafed facfs for disposal of fhis appeal are ‘rhaf on 13.10.2001 when appeHanf was alighi'ing from frac'ror' bearing No.MP27- 3/4875 raspondenf N01 who was drlvmg fhe fracfor negligen‘Hy drove fhe vehlcie as a resulf appeHanf feH down and susfamed several Injuries mcludmg fracfure on his righf fhigh. He assessed *he claim To The Tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and for compensafion award, filed applicafion under Secfion 166 of fhe Acf againsf fhe owner and driver of fhe offending vehicle. 3) ' Claim was confesfed by respondenfs infer a/ia on The ground fhaf on 18.10.2001, fhe offending fracfor was noi- in use bu? was lying idle. Appellani‘ on fhaf day while working in bolder mines susfained injuries as a ~ resulf of fall of a bolder. 4) In suppor'l of fheir case, boi‘h 'l'he par‘ries adduced evidence. Learned Tribunal affer appreciai'ing fhe evidence recorded finding fha‘l claimani' failed To prove fhaf he susfained injuries on accounf of acciden‘f caused by responden‘i No.1 V- Sanjay Toppo by driving Tracfor bearing No.MP - 27 - B 4875 and trolley No.27 - B M876 in a rash and negligenf manner, Therefore, dismissed ‘l'he claim. 5) Surendra Singh (AW-1) and his cousin Rudraprasad (AW-3) in _ fheir evidence sfai'ed fhaf when Surendra Singh was aligh‘iing from fhe Traci-or, Sanjay Toppo suddenly plied fhe fracfor, fherefore, Surendra Singh fell down and his fhigh was ran aver by fhe Trolley wheel. On The oTher hand, in rebuTTal, SanJay Toppo (NA/1), Ramlal Singh (NA/2), Sahadev Singh @ (NA/3), in their sfafemenfs have sfuTed fha‘r Surendm Singh susfained injuries, as a resuH' of fa” of a heavy sfone an his right Thigh. 6) AT ’rhe fime of admission in ’rhe hospifal, irgur-ed Surendra Singh {appellanf) gave a history of fali of sfone and ihis faci‘ has been corrobora‘i'ed wi’rh claimant's documem’ and even sfai'emenf of Surendr'a Singh (appeiiam). The S'i'ory of ran over by fhe wheel of imiiey has been infroduced by the appeiian'r for ‘ihe firs‘i fime in evidence, wifhou‘i’ there being any such pleading. AH-hough affer a long period; an 22.11.2001 reporf was made buf fhere alsa fhe sfor'y of r'un over by wheei of ’rroiiey has no‘i been unveiled. 7) If is manifesi' ’rhm‘ evidence advanced by responden‘i' was corroborafed from various corners, whereas evidence adduced by The anpellani suffers from serious infirmifies, Therefore, learned Tribunal correctly dis-believed such feeble evidence adduced by The cloiman‘l, and accepfed The evidence of opposife pari‘y. From the above facis and circumsfances, if is clear fhaf Tribunal afier due appreciai'ion of legal evidence has recorded i‘i's finding which is neifher illegal nor incorrect 3) In fhe resulf, fhe appeal being devoid of subsfance, is liable To be dismissed; and is accordingly dismissed. No cosfs. dm paa