^^ ^ THE OF AT B/Q s"" 32 r/o - Sankri ~ Abhanpur h^ L-^ •^ . :^$"" ,..:^p"" '^ A'<1"- <1 ^ 2- ^ ^ s J s/o 50 w/o .50 Lsf slo * 12 s/o 9 d/Q the sf All for No, All T/0 - J 73 OF TVE 1981 ^ \v\v' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR AppelJant Respondents M.A.No. 764 of 2003 Naval Kishore Versys Beeraju Tandon & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES A.CT (SB: Hon'fole Mr. N.K. AaanA/al. J.| Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu with Shri Suresh Tandon, Advocates for the appeilant. Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th day of August, 2010) 1. This is owner's appeal directed against the award dated 17.07.2003, passed by the Vlth Additlonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 8/2003, awardlng Rs. 1 ;85,000/- as compensatlon in favour of respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.11.02, Ramnarayan Tandon (since deceased) was dashed by the Drlver of Tractor bearing regjstrat|on No.MP 23 GA-2678 (New Number CG 04/ZG/2775 and Trolley No. CG 04/ZG/2776) due to which the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The claimants/respondents preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- for the death of deceased in the said accldent. ^6' c 4. The appellant i.e. owner-cum-driver of the Tractor denied the claim and pleaded that the said accident dld not occur with the Tractor in questjon. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, held the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivjng of the Driver of the Tractor and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents. 6. Shri Sahu, learned counse! for the appellant would submjt that oniy eyewitness examjned by the ciaimants is Kashi Ram Tandon (AW-3) who has deposed that accident occurred due to Driver of the Tractor who was driving the Tractor rashly and negiigently, whereas, the wltness examined by the appellant i.e. Kali Ram (NAW-3) has stated that Kashi Ram was not present on the spot at the time of accident, and therefore, the respondents have failed to prove the invofvement ofthe Tractor in question in the said accident. 7. On the other hand, Shri Sharma, learned counse! appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tractor was seized from the appeliant, the same was given to him on Supurdnama, Criminal offence was registered against him, Kashi Ram is the person who lodged the FIR (Ex. P/2) who a!so explalned the contents of FIR, therefore, the Tribuna! has rightly fastened the iiability upon the owner ofthe vehicle. Sahu 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties; perused the award impugned and records ofthe Trjbuna!. 9. The appellant himself has stated that the tractor was involved in the said accident and Ka!i Ram (NAW-3) has a!so deposed that the deceased was found unoonscious near the Tractor jn question. He has not stated anywhere In his statement that the Tractor in question was not involved in the accldent and in such circumstances, the Tribuna! has rightly held the Tractor in question was involved in the accident and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe appei'ant. 10. In view of above, it cannot be said that the Tribuna! fastened the iiability upon the appellant without there being any evidence. The Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the appella.nt which is based on evidence and material availabie on record and thus, 1 do not find and illegaiity in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of thls court. 11. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge