IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) No. ; <^'3 of2009 ^ ^^i APPELLANTS Claiinants .^ ^l^' ^ ^.^ .^ :1. Smt. Yashoda Bai, W/o Late Shri Ghurauram Kumhar, aged about 26 years, 2. Ku. Jageshwari, D/o Late Shri Ghurauram Kumhar, aged about 07 years, 3. Someshwar, S/o Late Shri Ghuraurara Kumhar, aged about 04 years, 4. Tumeshwar, S/o Late Shri Ghuraurara Kumhar, aged about 01 years, 5. Gaindi Bai, W/o Shri Devaluram Kumhar, aged about 55 years, 6. Devaluram, S/o Late Latel Kumar, aged about 58 years, Appellants No. 2 to 4 are minor through legal guardian Smt. Yashoda Bai, W/o Late Shri Ghurauram Kumhar, All R/o Kumharpara, Bramhanpara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District- Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/^ :1 Non-Applicants v^r- e- Khemlal/ S/o Kanshirani Sahu, aged about 50 years,, R/o Village-Aamdi, Tahsil & District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Mahendra Kumar, S/o Kanshiram Sahu, aged about 53 years, R/o Village-Aanidi, Tahsil & District-Dhamtari (C.G.) MEMQ OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 1583 of2009 Appellants Smt. Yashoda Bai 85 others Versus Respondents Khemlal & another ® MLSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 19th day ofJanuaiy, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal, filed by the appellants/claimants arises from the award dated 6th October, 2009, passed by the'Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 16/2008, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants/claimantsSmt. Yashoda Bai (widow), Ku. Jageshwari (minor daughter), Someshwar (minor son), Tumeshwar (minor son), Gendi Bai (mother) and Devlooram (father) being legal heirs of the deceased Ghurauram had field a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 26,00,OOO/- under various heads. ..^T^^ -^ INII^iiaiN» 6. According to the claimants on 16.12.2005 at 6.30 p.m. Ghurauram along with other labourers was returning to his home after completion of the agriculture work of the owner of the Tractor ~ Trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 05 ZG 0314 and 0315. Ghurauram was sitting in the trolley. At that time near Bilaimata Temple due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l ( Khemlal) the vehicle suddenly jumped and the trolley turned turtle. Due to this accident Ghurauram fell down from the trolley and came under the rear wheel ofthe trolley, which has resulted in his death. Before flling ofthe above claim petition (Claim Case No. 16/2008) the appellants/claimants had filed another Claim Case No. 139/2006 before the same Tribunal for the same incident, wherein it was stated that while Ghurauram was returning to his horae after attending the call of nature, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZD 834 the accident had occurred and Ghurauram died. That claim case was withdrawn by the appellants/claimants with liberty to file a fresh claim case. Learned Claims Tribunal has found that the claimants/appellants have projected various stories in regard to the incident and there are various contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which suggest disbelieving their version. The claimant No.l - wife of the deceased deposed that her husband Ghurauram was sitting in the front side of the Tractor and she was sitting inside the trolley whereas in the clairn petition it has been stated that Ghurauram was sitting in the trolley. The Tribunal has found that there was no occasion for the clainiant No.l to see the incident. Another witness Usha Prajapati (P.W.2) has also stated that she had seen the incident as she was also sitting in the trolley but ^'^. ^N^ 8. her name was not shown in the police record as eye witness to the incident. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record from the all angles, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appellants/claimants have failed to establish and prove their case that the accident had occurred by the vehicle in question in which Ghurauram died to whom they were dependent. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur '^»»^*'