EN THE Hi§H COUVF C5 TUDXLxQTLRE AT %ILA¢?UQ fiHHATTEEééMéH givisisn Elench éaz$£§LLéNEavs AwEAL N0! 50 “f a? 2w; $v§§3cei§awegu5 £§waé imdfer Slawior. g3 a? ?ha f§is$er~ Vawcigs éc“ 8% ,1 xr’cLEJKN r‘ K 1 a SI! fag lcumams) /L Jaom‘r'nm Eai W/e Lat? 30h “zdGs Aged abou; £0 yeax a. Kum‘ Duj Eai, Dfo Lafz Cohmdas, Aged abo ‘é 16; yecaws. Kum. Pushpa, D/o Lairz 5ohandas, Aged abou? 14 years. Kum. Tu!si, D/o La‘re Sohmdgns £ged abG T i2 wan. om C J.iosh Das, 5/0 Law Sahcmdast Aged absuf 16 year‘g. Digam bar Das, S/o Lafe. So'ncndaa', y%gad abouw‘ 7 years. Appa3§ams 2 “0?; mmors fhrough guardEan ms‘i'her' angeHaaT No.1 Jagm’rhin Bai. AH residarv‘rs of Viéiaga: Dhehmdih Céiony, Quam‘er' No.267, Tehsii: Kafghorcg D§sfric1‘: Kwba (£16.) R _ V ms _ REéPOE EDEN? : Chha‘wlai Kevam a, $/o Bedmm Kevar'fya, Aged abouf 38 years, Q/s Sarvamangab 9am}, Korba, Tehsi§ é; D§sfricfr Karim (CG) (Drivar of Truck baaring recaisfm‘rion No.CG-O4/ #3915} Mfs, Sarmmwgaia Censfmc‘fign Compam’ Limifed, iOé, TP. Nagar, Korba; "{‘z‘hsé! & Dis'rr'i-sf: Ksrba (CG) Branch Manager, Unifgd India Inwmnce Company Limi’red, T.P. Nagm‘, Korba (CG) Th rough: The Branch Manager, Rajendm Nagar Chowk, Bihspur, Tehsi! 5k Disi'r'icf Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENWV: ’ RE 5PONDENT/‘ ‘ (insurer) \m : / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. AEE-eal No. 604 of 2004 Jagnathin Bai and others. Versus Chhotelal Kevartya and others — Sr Sanay awal w1th Shrl Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Sr graa learned Senlor AdVocate with Shr1 Panka hl H BAwl j ’ AGARWL ’ L JHANWAR, JJ PRESENT hl J K Agr r ppellant graw Advoce f spondent NO 3 Aal at or re R A L o R D E R (29.10.2010) Per NK Agarwal, J. i’l’a‘ill . Tis i claimns’ appeal against rejection of the claim case by th Addtional tor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Dtrict Judge, Bilaspur Vide award dated 15.4.2004 passed in lai se N 5/2002 Cm Ca o 7 r e , according to the Clalmants, are that on 1 adas was gomg on his motor cycle to attend h1s dues t ing OJect When he reached the square of Slnghall PrOJec one truc bring No C G O4/A 8915 being driven by 1ts drve / respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, was coming 1n pstedashlhth motor cycle, as a result of such dash, Sondas wa thrown out of motor cycle and comeninto contact with t heel of th s‘aid offending truck, due to which, Sohandas s d1ed n pt . n accoun death of clalm petit1on seekmg compensat1o f w illed Whereln inter aha it was pleaded that at h me Cent Sohandas was aged 44 years and was te ti of aCid ‘ ’earinay. 2 h s at e i Mo is 3 «wBrif facts 0 09 2002 Sohn ti a Shali Pr t k ea ir opoihede ha s he w e ha o the so 4 O t of n o Rs 44 95 000/ as APPELLANTS [Claimantsl RESPONDENTS DB HONBLE SHRI N K A HONBLE SHRI R fo the as x : o ng as hi the worki Mecancal Fitter in Singhali Project undertaken by S.E.C.L. and at the time ofaccident his salary was Rs.9,961 /— per r month. 5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondents No.1 85 2 ecame ex parte. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement enying all the averments mentioned in the claim petition. It was secifically pleaded that due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, the said accident took place. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, held that he deceased was himself negligent in driving his ,motor cycle nasmuch as he came into contact with the rear wheel of the offending truck in question and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and dismissed the claim petition. However, no fault liability of Rs.50,000/-‘under Section 140 of the V .V.Act has already been awarded in favour of the claimants. The said compensation of Rs.50,000/— awarded under no fault liability was not also directed .to bereeovered from the appellants. 7._ _ Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in recording the finding relating to negligence on the part of the deceased himself. No other point was urged. 8.. lQn .the. other, hand, ,Shri. ,H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate w1th Shri Pankaj Agrawal, submitted that the learned ’ Claims Tribunal recorded the above finding only after appreciating he entire evidence led before it, therefore, the appeal be dismissed. . We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have, .r?m§¢d_..thategor¢ 9ft.-th§.>.91aixtl§ .Trihanal- including the award impugned. 10. A bare perusal of evidence of eye witnesses Arjun Prasad A.W.2 and Premsai A.W.4, examined by the claimants, would clearly reveal that the deceased himself was pegligent and responsible for the above accident. He was going all along with the i / .1; ion. rear portion of the said truck and came into contact with thelrear. b d p t i M t 9 whéel of the truck In such‘situation the driver of the said Truck 'could not be held hable for the acc1dent and the learned Trlbunal has rlghtly held that the deceased hlmself was responslble for the acc1dent. However, even 1f the deceased h1mse1f was neghgent, claimants are entitled for no fault amount, as provided under Section 140(4) of the M.V. Act, which has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit and substance in the instant appeal, therefore, the appeal. being devoid ofmerit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costgWy» Sd/— N. K. Agarwal Judge /