HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Division Bench : HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. JJ Misc. Appeal No. 770 of 2003 '^ Appellant Ramadhar Respondent Versus Virendra Kumar Verma and another. QRDER FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P.SHARMA Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge PronouncementofJudgment :t?3.08.2010 Sd/- R.LJhawar Judge "'%>. M' ^ • ^IS^. ft ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. JJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal No. 770 of 2003 Ramadhar, S/o Manlal Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Basantpur, Ward No. 40, District Rajnandgaon. VERSUS 1. Virendra Kumar Verma, Vehicle Driver, aged about 30 years, S/o Satrughan Lal Verma No. 1347 Policeline Staff Quarter P.W.D. 18 Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg. 2. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, (Vehicle Owner), Government Jeep No. M.P. P- 4177Through; S.P. Durg. APPEAL^JNDER^ECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri N.K.Chatterjee,counselforthe appellant. ipnepresentforrespondentNo.1. ^ ^hriSushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondent No.2 ORDER (Passedon j8 .08.2010) Per R-LJhanwar, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 07.02.2003 passed in'claim caseNo. 110/1997 by the2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition filed bythe appellant has beendismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.04.1997 at 10.30 P.M. the appellant along with one Chalak Ram were going towards Bhilai Hotelon Scooter No. M.P. 24 YB-2329 (henceforth 'the Scooter'), all of sudden at the sametime, respondent No.1, who was driving the Jeep No.M.P.P.4177 (forshort 'the offending vehicle) owned by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Scooter, as a result ofwhich, the appellant andpillion rider received serious injuries. ^'-' . ^M^. % •^:y L. 3. Seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, a claim petition has been filed wherein it was pleaded that he received grievous injuries, due to which, he suffered mental agony and economical loss. As against this, the respondents by filing their written statement denied all the averments pleaded in the claim petition. They specificatly pleaded that challan has been filed against the driver of the Scooter - Mahesh Kumar Yadav in the Court of concerned Magistrate and this fact has been suppressed by the appellantin his pleadings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation in favour of the sufferers/victims of the motor accident. No strict proof like in civil case is required to prove the issues in the claim case. The Tribunals are required to take liberal view to adequately compensate the sufferers of the motor accident against the earning persons. Itwas further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the appellant suffered 40% permanent disability due to accident and as such should have granted no fault liability. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel forthe parties at length, perused the impugned award including record oftheTribunal. 7. 'T^ccording to the documentsavailable on record and proved by the claintent - Ramadhar, it is clear from the F.1.R. Ex.P.2 that Chalak Ram Yadav reported the matter against Mahesh Kumar Yadav that he was driving the Scooter rashly and negligently on which Chalak Ram Yadav and Ramadhar were'sitting as pillion riders. Due to rash and negligent driving, Mahesh Kumar dashed against one cyclist, as a result ofwhich, they fell down and received injuries. It has also come in the evidence that they were in drunken condition. In F.I.R. Ex.P.2, the name ofthe driver of the Jeep did not find place nor did find place the number of Jeep. Ifthe accident would have taken place due to negligent driving of Jeep driver, then the Jeep numblywould certainly have been found place in F.1.R. It is also evident that accident took place with the Jeep and in such a situation why Chalak Ram Yadav lodged against F.I.R. against Mahesh Kumar, driver ofthe Scooter, instead of lodging report against the Jeep driver. "^s:>:: .~^ ^ 8. It is further evident from the evidence of the appellant - Ramadhar that he, Chalak Ram Yadav and Mahesh Kumar were sitting on the Scooter and Mahesh Kumar wasdriving the Scooter. If the evidence that they were not indrunken condition at that time of accident and the driver ofthe offending Jeep dashed them rashly and negligently, as stated by this witness in his evidence, is taken into consideration, then the facts mentioned in DehatiNalishiEx.P.3car\r\o{ be discarded wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Scooter and not on the part of Jeep driver. More over, the appellant in his cross-examination in para 16 also accepted that Ex.P.3 Dehati Nalishi is correct. It is alsoevident from F.1.R. Ex.P.2 that one charge sheet was filed against Mahesh Kumar under Section 279 and 337of the I.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai which shows that driver of the Scooter was negligent. The fact that charge hasbeen filed against Mahesh Kumar was concealed by the claimant. It is also to be noted that if the Scooter met with accident with the Jeep, then certainly the Scooter would have been damaged. It was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that the Scooter was damaged. It has not come in the evidence of Ramadhar, present appellant, that howthey came to the number of Jeep. 9. According to Virendra Kumar, N.A.W.1. he was driver at the time of accident and on the said date no such Scooter was met with accident by his Jeep. It is also evident from the evidence of Dr. S.K.Fating N.A.W.2, whoexamined Chalak Ram, Ramadhar and Mahesh Kumar, that these three were found in drunken condition which shows that at the time of accideht these three were in drunken condition and the driver of the Scooter was driving the vehicle ina rash and negligent manner and due to thattheydashedagainstacyclistand fell down and received injuries. 10. In sum and substance, we.find from the evidence that on the date ofaccident, the said Scooter was being driven by Mahesh Kumar; three persons including the present appellant were sitting on the Scooter which is against the rules of Motor Vehicles Act; the driver of the Scooter has not produced any driving licence;owner andinsurer of the Scooter were not made as party in claim case, therefore, the driver - Mahesh Kumar was a borrower; driver of the Scooter Mahesh Kumar, Ramadhar and Chalak Ram were found in drunken condition which is also__aaainst the rules of '^.^i> @ Motor Vehicles Act and due to rash and negligent driving of Mahesh Kumar charge sheet has also been filed against him. 11. On appreciating the evidence led before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim ofthe claimant. 12, On close scrutiny, we find that the appellant/claimant has not been able to prove that the driver of the Jeep was negligent and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep, accident took place. Instead, the appellant has concealed the main fact that they were negligent and in drunken condition and in such condition they dash one cyclist, due to that accident took place, as found in F.I.R. 13. Consequently, the appeal as filed by the appellanVclaimant being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. No orderasto costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 8d/- R.L. Jhariwar Judge i^