IN THE HIGH CO RT OF JUDIC TU E AT BILASPUR CHHATTI§§ARH Dmm Bengh Mi. No. g g 7 /2006 APPELLANT @EAIMANT :wz Shailes Kumar /L\ged about 32 years r‘ ;S/o. Katwaru Prasad R/o. M/232, Vikas Nagar Kusmunda Project Ko rba At present R/o. Shailendra Kumar Singh near Rajaswa Colony Chatidihi Tah. & Dist. BHaspur (C.G.) VERSQS RgSPQNDENTS :10? Kishori Singh Chandel ‘9“ gr/ S/o. Chandulal Chandel R/o Qtr.No.B/76 Vikas Nagar Kusmunda, Project Tahsil r Katghora, Dist. Korba (C.Gi) Q’I‘z. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through : Divisionai Manager Transport Nagar Korba i TEE KM Dist. Korba (C.G.) .w w HEgH aaEiR'? @F C%‘§%€1§AT?§$$§R§'§ Q? ERASQJ Méga. Agmwg Ma: 83% a? Eaw $W§3L LN“ : Sh§§§6$h Kumar Pi lulhfif‘i\§‘g‘ RE$?Q?§§3EM”§'$ : Késha?i $mgiL: Chanda} and a’noiher. AP?EAL UNDER $ECT§GN ’E {3 O TPE I‘vaGTO‘? VEHICL$S ACT 1 E88 DB: Hon’bhe $h$§ Justice Hf? Qméuaé, 8., Hcn’bie $hr§ $3s€ica> MEE‘; Aggmig ,i'esem : ShriSamagh Shamaswma a wawé Shy; Ajay Mis‘ma, saun$e§ §ar rewanasem N92. i§§§i €3§€Q§Er §?as$e£§ rim zff" ziay (3f Nwembara EMQfg @er £K ‘Qqawmé* ‘. Thia is daimam’s appea§ fiied againa'z {ha award dated G5 12 ? 5 pa$$ed by Mator ccxden‘ “aims Trbuna! (0mg, §§§£§ Kama {far shark ‘i‘he" Tribuna!) in Ciaim Case No. 22/2GQ4, éismissing the daim getwon §§l by *h wam '2‘ B¥Sef facés 9f thte case accarding i0 apgaeignt are :hai a“ 16-10—2GG2, ihe agpeHant bzwrmwed éhe Scogter'bearéng regisitratéan ' N0. CG. $2—ZE/ 7 from KésharE smgh ChameE/rewondem Nail The apgeéiani, whéle ériving the sa§d acacia, met with an accident, as a re3Lt E’ whgch, he sustamac ‘ injurias: n ihe said amidani 3‘ I‘ne agpegamiciaimani has g‘iied a ga-stitian bezara £ ad,-mE Tribunal undef Semien 155 of tha Mam VehisieaAci, 3%8 {2' ‘\‘ F W‘h d m ‘the Act’) dimmg sompenaatn R53? 1 ,55,{)OG!- for the 3m a m ar’ iniuyies su3ta§ned by him in the Said accideni". 4. The :earneé Tribunai an olo scwtiny 3f ihe evidence ied, mataréaE pEacei? and aubmigsx‘ans made by the pan‘Eesg d§$mi$secé the dam petiiicn an th grod that the appeHant Es mt entiti&c§ f0? any o0mpensat¥on ,— o. 33m Saniosh Bharat, ieamed ceunse! appearing f0? me appeiiant wauEd contend ihai mas wa$ mechanioa§ fauit infh€3 vehicie (Sceater) and %hu$, the cwmer of tine swam-r was negiigent in maintaining §he said vemcie and mt the appeilant, ihei’efare, the ieamed Wibunai has erred in dismissing ihe claém petiéégn. r\ a. Gm the ei‘aer hand, $hr§ Am: Mishra, ¥eamed caunsei appearing for the respondent NoQHnsurance Company would submii that the !eamed Tzibuna§ n83 ngnny held: apne§£antic¥a§mant was negirigent in driving the vehicle and has rgghny d£smisseri the claim petE’iéon. He wou§d further cantand that the nppeHant barrowed the Scoater from {he rea! owner and was driving the same and thus, he steps inte the shoes ef the ewner and he net being e hird ean‘y, hés daim eetitéen was a? a}! net maintainame. 7. We have heerdx #earned ceuneel fa? me pariiee ehd perueed the gaward impugned and ihe {ecorcis ef the Tribuna§. 8. We do net i‘ihd any materie§ m evidence ehewihg aceidenz‘ in question oeeurred due te mechanicai ’feuii ef the vehicle. The ieeAieci Wimhai has righi‘iy rejected the above pie-e raised by .~—\ / $e e un the appeHant. Further, the appeEan‘l hac: borrowe§ the v (Scaoter) fram the originai owner o'f ihe vehicle. The appeiiant camnat be heid to be an employee of ihe owner of ihe Scaoier akhoug‘n he was author§$ed t9 drive the said scooter by ite owner and, iherefare, he wouid step mto the shoes of ihe owner 9f the scooter and thus, he not being the ihird pahy is not emitted t0 claim compensation under Moior Vehicies Am. Kvr 9. ih véew of the above, in our censidered opinéoh, the §earhed Tribuna§ has net committed any such error in dismisetng the cteim warranting interference of this Court. Thus, the appeet preferred by the appeiient being devoid of substance is tiebie to be and is hereby dismissed, No order aeto costs Sdl- I.M.Quddusi i .‘i Sd/- Judge N.K.Agarwal Judge