IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ M.A.(C) N0. ^"l^ / 2009 ^ Appellant : Jairam Chakradhari (Kumhar), (Claimant) Aged about 26 years, R/o Village - Applicant Baratnara, Post 85 P.8.- Dharsinwa, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur-(C.G.). Versus Respondents : 1. (Non-Applicants) .^ ^^;^ <^ n ^•"""...<^ 'v»^A-Vr ^:^^^^ ft^"" Nandkumar Matware, Aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Siya Ram Matware 2. Bhuneshwar Dhrit Lahare, Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Dhrit Lahare Respondent no.l & 2 are R/o Village - Satnamipara-Ranwabhata, P.S. - Khamtari, Town, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vidhansabha Road, Raipur- (C.G.) 4. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Manager, Circle Office Jail Raod Kachehari Chowk, Raipur-(C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. „.- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Aanihotri and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.596 of 2009 Appellant Jairam Chakradhari (Kumhar) versus Respondents Nandkumar Matware and others Present: Shri Manoj Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raghvendra Verma, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.4. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13th January, 2010) Per Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.: Heard finally. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the clajm petition by award dated 26-12-2008 passed by the 2nd Addjtional Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal, Raipur jn Claim Case No.7/2008, the daimant/appellant herein has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act'). 3. The appellant had preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which took place on 1-4-2005 when the claimant was comjng from his native Vjllage Baratnara on a bicycle. He was dashed from behind by ptractor bearing registration No.CG 04/D-6451 and trolley bearing registration No.CG 04/ZD-7282, which was driven in rash and ^ negligent manner by the driver. On a report being lodged, Dharsewa police had registered offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 ofthe Indian Penal Code on Crime No.99/2004. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner respectively ofthe offending vehicle, have filed theirreply in the claim petition and have not denied the involvement of the vehicle but have stated in their additional statement that the driver was having a valid drivjng licence and was driving the tractor and trolley very carefully. 4. The insurance companies/respondents No.3 and 4 herein have denied the liability on the ground that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. 5. The jearned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the involvement of the tractor and trolley has not been proved by the claimantby examining any eye-witness. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the record, it is born out that none ofthe non-applicants/respondents herein have denied the factum of involvement of the tractor and trolley bearing registration No.CG 04/D-6451 and CG 04/ZD-7282 respectively. Further, by the additional statement made in the reply of respondents No.1 and 2, it was stated that the driver was driving the vehicle carefully, meaning thereby that though the accident had taken place with the said vehicle yet the driver was not responsible. Apart from this, the claimant has filed papers like the final report (Ex.P-1), the F.1. R. (Ex. P-2), request for medical examination ofthe claimant (Ex.P- y i ^'""'x 3), X-ray report (Ex.P-4), seizure memo ofthe tractor and trolley (Ex.P- 6 and Ex. P-7) etc. In all these documents prepared by the investigating agency in course of jnvestigation of the crime, the vehicle numbers have been mentioned. The claimant himself is an eye- witness and has proved the involvement ofthe vehicle and its rash and negligent driving by the driver. He has also examined A.W.-2, Dr. Prakash Kumar Gupta, who has treated him. 7. In view of the above evidence on record, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in response to issues No.1 and 2that the claimant has failed to prove the accident as well as the injury is perverse. The Claims Tribunal has not at all applied its mind and appreciated the evidence available on record. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby altowed. The impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. 8. The observations made hereinabove. if any, may not be construed as opinion of the Court on merit. 9. The matter is remanded to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh. 10. Registry is directed to send back the record of the Claims Tribunal forthw'rth. No order as to costs. _— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal