h Aepelia'rts Ctaimonts HI6H COURT OF CHH.4TraS6^RH -4T BIL4SPUR rt..4.No.717of2007 1. Swt. fiurmest Kuui", aged about 44 years, Wifeof Shri Ajoydb Singh, Caste Sikh; 2. Boby Kaur, aged about 22 yegrs D/o Shri Aiayab Sinqh, Caste Sikh, Resident of Kohka, Purani Basti, Post BhiJai, District Durg (C.&). Vefsus Respoiden+s Non-ciaimants ftaju Pate! Son of Shri Deyshnran Patel, Resjdent of T.P. Naqdr, Hathkhoj, Bhiiai, District burg (C.6.) (Griver) 2. Shri A. Singh Son of Late jShri Fauja Sinoh, Resident of C.G. Electr'icity Board, Near Sub Stotion Kohka, Post Bhilai, b'st-ict Durg (C.&) (Owner) 2. NationalInsur'anceCompanyLifflited, . Divisional Office. &E. ftoad, Raipur, Post and District Raipur (C.&) flnsursr^ (Appeai under sectio" 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicls .^.ct, 1988) &B: Hon'bleMr.T.P. Shorma, Hon'bleMr. R.N.Chondrotor, J.J Prese-nt: AA.r- .AA.K-Bhcsdur', counsei for* the appellants- None oresent for resoondent No.l. Mr'.Kavindr'a Agrawai, counsei for respondent No.2. Mr.Raj Awasthy, counssi for r®spondentt4o-37 ^assed on 4th cebrt«ry, 2010) 1. The appe!!ants haye prefe?Ted this cppea' under Section 173 (2) of the Mo+or Veh'icie Ac-t, 1988 Ghc.Henging the legality and proprie+y of tha award dated 23.3.2007 psssea bythe IIth Additionai^otor Accident Cfaims Tribuna! (F.T.C.), Raipur', IR Clsim Case NQ.53/2006, whereby It" ^ - 2- Isarned 11 Additiona! Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (sr, ^iort "Tribunal") has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants haye fniled to estibiish the fact that truck in question is offendm9 vehlc'e,>?ut 11as manlpulated 1he fact for 9ett"ing compensation. 2. Tie award is chailenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the eyidence of o"ly eye wi+nsss Suni! Shah (PW-4) who has categoricaSSy deposed 1+ict he, has seen the accident and he wns present -6" the spot and there.by committed i!lega!ity. 3. Ths brief facts "ecessery for disposa! of this cppea! are that accordinQ to pl.eadlng of the appeliants, the present appeitants sister amd mo+herof ths decsassd (^jr'nRlt Si^^h @ Sonu who died on Qccount of ''notor i accident occurred on 28.12.2005 have fited the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The !^?pe!jar)ts haye pieaded in their petitio" that at the time of cccident, respondent No.l was driying the truck in (juestion owned by respondent No-2 and yehicle was insymd "lith respondent No.3. Respondent No.l was driving the vehicle rashiy and ne9!i9er't!y anc< caused Oiccident. 4. ResDoidents Nlo.l Qiid 2 yyere ex-Dcrte b®forethe Trlbu"csL Respo^d^nt No.3 has contested the c!aim and specifically pleaded that •riis accldent occur'rsd as a resu!t of dash of two vehicles, therafore, both the vehicles a.re l.iable and responSible for the payment of compensatior'. Issues were framed and after nffor-ding a''! opportunity of heanng to the partiss, learned Tribunal has dismissed 1+>e claim petition. 5. We hav" heard learned cou":se! for" the poi*ties,psr'used the awar'd impugned a"d record of the claims Tr-ibuna!. / ! ' ~" • 6- Lenrned counsel for the cppeHants submits that +hou9h vide dehati nalishiEx.P/3. ©hanshyamSahu has lodged the report that the offending yehicle was unknown bus, butflifter* inyestigation made by the police. tkey cnme to conclusion that "fte offending yehicle was not bus and was truck E£: - 3 - bearing registrdtion No.C-6.07/C 3348 owned by respondent No.2 and driye" by respondent No.l and the pot'ce has filed the charge sheet agcinst respondent No.l. Learned counse! further submits that th.e appellants haye examined eye witness Suni! Shoh (PV/-4) who was present at the time of incident and deposed that the offending truck has caused the accide"t, but the Tr'ibunal hcs not considered unrebutted evidence of this evidence. 7. On the other hand, lear'ned counse! for respondent No.3 supported the award impugned and submits that in the present case, the appeltcnts in cnliusio" with respondents" No.l and 2 (driyer of th^ yehicle and husbind of appetlant No.l) hnd filed the clain' petition for compensation. Learned counsel furl+ier submits thst yirtualty the claim is 'against respondent No.3 nnd they haye tried to temper the eyidence, but the Tribuna! has righ+ly dismissed the c'aim petition. 8. From per-usBl of the award impugned cnd record of the cloims Tribunal, it is clear that immediate after the accident dehati na'ish! was recorded by one (9hrtnshyc£rn Sahu, pilt'o" r!derl of the ??iotor*-cyc!es thfit hs a!ong w'th ano+her persons nan'ely, Pappu S'ngh and deceased Surmit Singh were 9oing on motor'-cyde arfd, accident took p!ace o" accou"t of negHgsnt driying of dr'ivet' of unk"ow" bus who fled awoy fr'on the spot. O" the basis of dehati nalishi, F-I-R- Ex.P/2 was registered, but after sometime, inyestigating officer has inyestigated the offence OLnd filed the charge sheet against respondent No.l mainly on the basis"of s+atement of Sunil Shah (PW-4). Oehati nalishi (Ex.P/l) a"d F.I.R. (Ex.P/2) reveal that (Si&nshyam Sahu and Pappu Singh who were sitting in the motor-cycie were substantiye witnesses to unfold the story, but at th.e time of inyestigating of tiie offence, investigating agency has not considered the evidence of these. witnesses- behati na!ishi and F.I.ft. oro the Substantiye pieces of eyidsnc^. Respondent No.l the drwe.r i.e. servmt of respondent No.2 and respondent No-2 the owner" of ^hs truck were ex-parte before the ctaims Tr'ibunal. . ~ -^-- 9. In the present co.se, it is per'tinent to note that respondent No-2 is father pf the deceased 6urm\t Singh and husband of appelkt"t No-1, but the cypeNants haye deliberately tr-ied to concea! the fact of relationship by men+ioning the nan'ie of respondent Mo.2 as A. Singh in the claim petition and memo of appeal and Aiayab Singh is husband of appe'lant No.l. The oypellants havenot examined ©hanshyar)'Sohu nnd Pappu Singh- In the absence of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the Court below has rightly dismissed the c'aim pe+'tion and righ+ly directed •Ae police for" investigntion. IQ.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any il!ega!it/ in the cwar'd impugned. Thecward being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissedor'd is accordingly diswissed- Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge Bh£ i^''n"~^:r3.:: ^nsssr'