QMshfi ^WQ^ fs' c BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR . ^- "MA^aNO. \^S ^/2008 APPELLANT»~ CLAIMANT8 1. Vijay Kumar S/o Birbal Sigh Banafar, aged about 25 years, ^..S.^^V-^W^^' R/o vfflage ^^^^_ to'^^^-^t'ffi? ^..<" .Thana & Tahasil Marwahi •flte^^^.<T.l.^<efe ^._^ ^., '^•".S'v^'1' VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. DEFENDANTNO.l 'L. (Onwer Vhicle) of the (Insurer of the 2, Vhicle) .^— -*- y^f 1- ^A^.^'.A' Distt. BUaspur C.G. V.K.Singh s/o Chandrahas ^^cv^^S^ Singh R/o village (guranapodp^— Thana 85 Tahasil Marwahi Distt. BUaspur C.G. (CG) Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. I.T.G.I. 3rd story shop No. 345, 347 Lal Ganga shopping Mall G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 ^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^PUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Aanihotri & Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Misc. Appeal iC) No. 14S7/2008 Appellant Respondents Versus Vijay Kumar V.K. Singh and another. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for the appeliant. Smt Anasuya Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2 Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988. ORAL ORDER (14.01.2&10) Per Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Heard. (2) This appeal arises from the award dated 21.01.2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Pendra Road in Motor Accident Claim Case No.41/2006, fited under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant has been rejected. (3) The case of the appellant is that the accident was caused by Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CG/IO-EA-2868. under the ownership of respondent No.1, at 5.00 p.m. on 24.01.2006, when the appellant was travellng on the motor cycle, he met with an accident, whlle saving a bicycle rider who came from the wrong side. The claimant/appellant suffered serious injuries which resutted Into permanent disab'rt'rty. The appe$lant fried a daim case claiming a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation against the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. (4) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents produced before us. It is found that the appellant has not produced any document to establish that he has 1 --5- suffered permanent disabilfty on account of the above stated accident caused by the offending motor cycte. The appellant has further failed to establish that he has undertaken treatment wherein he has incurred an expend'rture to the tune of Rs. 1,99,530/-. Learned Tribunat after examining the case at tength, on the basis of the evktence and documents produced before the Tribunat, came to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to establish his permanent disability as wett as medical expenses incurred by him. Accordingty, the case was dismissed. (5) Havlng heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and original documents avaiiable in the record of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the impugned award are unexceptionabte and do not suffer from any Irregutarity and illegality. The Tribunal has properiy considered all the evidences and has come to just conclusion. (6) For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the view that the appellant has miserably failed to establish his case on any ground which may lead to interference with the impugned award and as such, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Bm