^ W THE Hiai COdlT OF CHHATTISG^RH JUDICATLRE AT BILASPIR Qivision Beneh M .A.No*_7^t_y2003 \. / APPELLANTS /-SPPLTC^TTS <^:^L .^^^ t^'-«^^'y y^ ^ RESPONDENTS NC^ APPLIC^^TS : / 1-- Baraji Dhruw s/o Samaru Ram Dliruw aged 50 yrs. 2- Nirupabai w/o Kamji Dhruw aged 40 yrs. Botii resident of village- ward No^04> Brahmanpara B©netara»Tahsil & P.S. Bemetara» Distt. Durg (C.G«) VERSUS 1- Shatruhan Singh s/o Dular Singh Gond, aged 42 years / 9 Occupation- Driver» R/o " Sankarii P.S^ Gundarddii, Distt. Durg. A-b presen-b driver public works depart- ment Banetara^ Tahsil- B©netara»Distt. Durg 2- State of Ch^atUsgaih Throu^i- Collector, Durg Dis-brict- Durg (C.G.) ,,3- ExecuUve Engineer, Public works department, Bh^S. Banetara Division, Bemetara, Di^-b-fc. Durg (C.G.) '• 4- Sub-Divisional Officer, Public works department - (Bh.S.) sub-division- Bemetara, Distt* Durg (C.G.) ). 0 METvlCBANDUA OF APPEAL UNDEB SECTIpN_ 173_ MOTCB VEH ICLE ^CT. 1188 Being aggrieved by impugned award dated 14-5-03 ^ passed by learned motor accident claim (fur'kher called- learned tribunal for short) in daim case No. 02/2003 , -the appeltants prefer • • • • •^.^ • .^A- / ^t- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR APPELLANTS M.A. No. 724 of 2003 Ramji Dhruw & Another Versus RESPONDENTS : Shatruhan Sjngh & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal & Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar, *M. Present : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 2 to 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 18.11.2010) Per: N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The instant appeat has been preferred by the appellants agajnst the order dated 14.05.2003, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara ,Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 02/03, dismissing the claim petttion ofthe claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 23.11.2002, Mohan (since deceased) while traveling along wlth two friends on the motorcycle, near village Pikri, colttdedwlth Truck bearing registration No. CPZ-7688 due to brake applied by the driver of the Truck all of a sudden and as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the sajd accident. 3. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ^ ^ T u to- w 1 ^ €- compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, after recording categorical findings that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the motoreycle and was solely responsible person for the said accidert, dismlssed the claim petition. 5. Shri Sudhir Verma, tearned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that a bare pemsal of the evidence would reveal that the Tribunal has wrongly held the deceased solely responsibte person for the said accident, inasmuch as, the driver ofthe Truck had not extended his right arm with thepalm downward in such a manner that the signal can be seen by the drwer of any vehtele whteh may be behind him while slowing down the Truck, and as such, the above findings being erroneous, deserves to be set aside and the ctaimants are entttled for compensation at-least holding the Truck dwerateo negligent to someextent in the above accident. 6. On the other hand, Shrj G.D. Ws®wanj, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for State/respondent No.2 to 4 would contend that motorcycle was just behind the Truck; was being driven by the deceased rashly and negllgently; had not maintajned proper distance in view of para 23 of Rutes of the Road Regulations, 1989, and therefore, in view of evidaice adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has rightfy h^d the deceased himseff solely responsible for the said aceictent and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. \,(b ^'^y^ &. "' i ^Tr^Si^ B ^. %^^y .^' ^ ""\: t' 7. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and pemsed the Lower Court Record. 8. As per evidence of Shatruhan (NAW-1) i.e. driver of Truck, one Dog came in front of the Truck so he has to apply the brake suddenly but before applying the brake he extended his hand and back llght was also functioning properly, therefore, there was no negligent on his part in the said aGcident. The eye witness Sanjay Sharma (AW-2) has stsrted in para 4 of his statement that he doesn't know deceased was attentive when accident took place or due to hte unawareness the ^id accident had taken place. He has admltted that it is true If all of a sudden the driver of vehicle applies the brake then the driver drwing behind it will also apply the brake and back vehicle's driver should be alert. He has further stated that he does not know there is any arrangement in the Truck, whenever the brake is applied the back light will on. Further, as per mechanical report (Ex. P/9) the back Ijght in the Truck w^s in working condltion after accident. In such a case, fti our considered opinion, the Tribunal has net erred in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased himself was sotely respor®ible fortheaccident. 9. However. even if the deceased himself was negligent, as per provisions contained in Section 140 (4) of the MV Aot, claimants are errtitle for Rs. 50,000/-. As per order-sheet dated 27.03.2003 an award of Rs. 50,000/- of no fault compensation has been passed by the Tribunal and the same has also y •<' .^ Sahu 10. attained finality. If the same has not been patd by the respondents then the same may be recoyered by the appellants from respondent No. 2 to 4 along with inter^t @ 6 percent per annum from the date of order till its payment. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge v,0 "^ <^