/-^t IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M.A. ra NO. a'^r/e OF-a^i&- wm 7 APPELLANT •^y ^- ••x""'"p .o.^'SJr~~ ^^^•" sA'*1'' RESPONDENT Sanjay Kumar Banjare/S/o Ashwani Banjare, aged about 26 years, R/o Village-Tulsi (Baradera) Police Station Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Ifco Tokiyo, General Insurance Company Limited, Third Floor Shop No. 345, 347 Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal Rs. 12,90,000/- Amount awarded by the learned Claim rejected Tribunal Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal Rs.r^,3c''vvv {sislit's- MISCELLANESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No._285 of 2009 Appellant Sanjay Kumar Banjare Versus Respondent Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: HonTsle Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri P. P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, Advocates for the appellant. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day of November, 2011) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant arises from the impugned award dated 31.7.2008, passed by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 118/2007, dismissing the claim petition. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 12.3.2007 when the appellant/claimant was going on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G.-04-CR/3193, some unknown truck hit his motorcycle, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disablement. Thus, the appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming total compensation of Rs. 12,90,OOO/- from the Insurance Company, which had insured the motorcycle of the appellant. Learned Clairas Tribunal having considered the facts situation and the material available on record dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant does not corae under the category of third party, being owner and driver of the motorcycle and that there was violation of the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore the cla'im petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. ~- . K ECTSSSiBS-^SSEi^ ".S^iw^S' 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and having perysed the papers available on record we are of the opinion that when it was the case of the appellant/claimant that some unknown truck had hit his motorcycle, resulting in injuries and disablement of the appellant/claimant, he should have filed a claim petition under the provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because it was a 'hit and run motor accident'. At this stage learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays for liberty to approach the Claims Tribunal under the appropriate provisions of law. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal fails and is dismissed. However this will not preclude the appellant/claimant to approach the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- . '.- G. ^flinhajuddin Judge Thakur n=&-^MUU^^4.j i-v