-HC-78 ^n^T^T^RN^ cfm 3TT^T 5b4J<=h \.''.,- '-.^v- S^ ^NKrl^, yT{i'M<l<o, (c|dt^^< ^ +11*1^1 Sh*1(ch ^ 200 311^1 ^^ch (yi^si^) WrtW(rit^3Ti^?r HIGH COURT OF CltHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (CttNO. 480/2006 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0.2 RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT NON-APPLICANT N0.1 Present: Ms. Soniya Thakur, Mr. H.S.Patel, couns^ ORA (2(^ ^Ntol^^ WT^ff ^1^1 <Ri4^J< ^3Tf^T3T]^T Amrit Lal Patel, Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, aged about 51 years, Occupation-Vehicle Owner, Resident of Village Amaldiha, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Vijay Shankar Choudhary, Sori bf Shri Gajanan Prasad Choudhary, aged about 47 years, Occupation-Agriculture and Dairy Business, Resident of Village Tarkela, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Chandan Kumar Patel, Son of Shri Amrit Lal Patel, aged about 25 years, Occupation-Vehicle Driver and Agriculture, Resident of Village Amaldiha, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ounsel for the appellant. al for the respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT thJuly2007) XI-HC-78 ^n^^t^RNK cTSTT 3f[^T $b^ich 3^ •^NId^, «>Tf1^'t(o, fs|^|l^^< y ^j^^l sh^ich ^200 3^ 1^1 ^5| ch (^di^^r) ^NIW^??r3TlNT Dhirendra Mishra, J The appellant, E-0520, has preferred this April 2006 passed in Moto|i learned I Additional Motor) has awarded a sum No. 1 /claimant towards mofor vehicle accident offending tractor of the respondent No. 1. chN?^l41'-< Hl^cril ^ tS^Sf <Rl^J< ^^Tf^T3TI^f owner|ofthe offending tractor No. M.P. 26- appeal against the award dated 13th Mptotr Claim Case No. 39/2004 whereby Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh 1 of Rs.59,500/- to respondent th|e injuries sustained by him in a d^ted 28th November 2003 involving ^ppellant and the jeep owned by The only ground ^rged by learned counsel for the appellant in the present a^peal is that it is a case of collusion between a jeep and a tract|or, however, registered owner of the jeep has not been arrayed| as a party and the fact that there was a contributory negligetice on the part of driver of the jeep, has not been considered v|rhile disposing of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the aripellant referring to the statement of Dilip Patel, argued that on the date |riven rashly and negligently dashed non-applicarit witness No.^ of incident the jeep being c| with tractor of the appella^it, went inside the agricultural field ^/ <v and dashed against the b<|)undary ^atl of the field. However, the evidence of this witnes^ has been ignored. II P.T.O. XI-HC-78 T^^^TraT^PT, ^Tfi*l'Ko, (sfdl'M^ ^ ^l+l^l sb+llch ^( 200 ^Tt^MRprNK ^T^TT^) 311^1 M^«h(*ic<^<s«<'i:T) ?Nf^Rtf|ff3Ti^t <=t)Nkl41'1 Hl^ ^l^tiRt^K ^3T^"q"3n^f On the other han4, learned counsel for respondent No.l/claimant submits ttiat there is no pleadings of the appellant in reply to the cjlaim petition that driver of fhe jeep was driving the jeep rash |y and negligently, whereas there is documentary evidence av^ilable on record that driver of the tracfor was prosecutedfo the said prosecution, the the offence and no compl considering all these aspe| rash and negligent driving and in driver had admitted commission of [ant was lodged by the appellant or driver of the tractor ag^inst the driver of the jeep and •^ |cts in paragraph-8 of the impugned- award, learned claims Tri|bunal has not accepted versions of the appellant and driver of| I have heard learnecj fhe impugned award a^ evidence available on recoi| the jeep. counsel for the parties and perused also the oral and documentary •d. From perusal of plejadings of the respective parties and the documents available ()>n record, it is evident that driver of the offending tractor owjned by the present appellant was prosecuted for rash and r^[egligent driver. Further that there is no pleading by the appell^nt in reply to the claim petition that jeep was in fact being Idriven rashly and negligently and considering all these a^pects, learned Tribunal has not r XI-HC-78 W^TqRTfNt^ cTSTT3TR?T$b^l<=t) & -^ ^ s^'-^PTl^ra', ^Tfi'y'Ks, fcx-ii'y^ ^ +11+K11 Sh+lict) ^R; 200 3TT^7T ^5|ch (^cii^Gi^) ^cTRK ^fgcf 3TT^T accepted defence of the F| impugned award, which doe| In the result, the liable to be dismissed and i^ aplpeal chNf^l41T1 W^ff ^ tel^t<F3l^K ^3:[f^q'3:n^T resent appellant and passed the s not call for interference. being devoid of. substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.