IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.ictNo. cn^ /20ii Singte Bencb' APPELLANTS u -' '^. ^^^ ^•^5-^ .^^ ^SSPONDENTS < Suresh' @ Dholu, Son of Shayamlal Dhimar, Aged about 24 Years, Resident of Bazar Chowk, Village PCnvar, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg, C.G (DRIVER) 2. Doctor J.L Verma, Son of Rajaram Verma, Aged about 58 Years, Resident of: Behind Uttar Vasundhara Nagar College, Bhilai 3, District Durg, C.G (Owner) VERSUS 1., Kumari Bai, Wife of ate Kishun Ram Sahu, Aged about 28 Years. (Claimant) Gaind Lal Sahu, Son of late Kishun Ram Sahu, Aged about 25 Years (Claimant) Lilaeshwar sahu, Son of Late Kishun Ram Sahu, Aged about 22 Years (Claimant) All are Reasident of: Village Aamdi, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, C.G APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ^ACT. 1988 ^ HIGHCQURT^FCHHATTJSGARHATBILASPUR APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.CNo. 972 of 2011 Suresh @ Dholu & another VERSUS Kumari Bai & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr.-tN.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Md. Tarek Haider, Advocate Tor respondents. -r ORAL ORDER (Passedon 01.12.2011) 1. This is owners' appeal against the award passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 105/10 vide award dated 10.02.2011. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 31,70,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow and two major sons of deceased Kishun Ram Sahu by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166oftheMotorVehiclesAct, 1988(forshort'MVAct'5 for his deatfr in the motor accident on 07.01.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,44,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from <the date of application till its actual payment in favour of respondent No. 1/Kumari Bai and as against the appellant. 3. The Tribun^l, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of t. ^- Kawasaki Bajaj motorcyele bearing registration No. CG-07-G- 9249 by its driver/appellant No.1; Kishun Ram Sahu died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of respondent No. 1/Kumari Bai. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal, ignoring the statement of eye witness in criminal case No. 108/10 (Ex. D/1) and the faet that there was complete darkness at the time of accident and the cyclist Kishun Ram Sahu (deceased) also should have taken care while cycling, has passed the award against the appellant holding him sotely negligent for cause of accident. Aecording to Shri Dhurandhar, the cyclist must have contributed to the cause of accident at-least to some extent, and therefore, the amount awarded deserves to be suitably reduced. On the other hand, Shri Haider, learned counsel appearing forthe respondents contended, appellant did not examine any witness on his behalf nor he himself entered into witness box; admittedly the accident had occurred on 07.01.2008 at 8 pm meaning thereby night wasdark and tbe appellant should have taken care of the cyclist,-inasmuCn as, the appeltant was driving the motorcycle with headlight; as per spot map, the appellant dashed the cyclist by going towards his right side l.e, wrong side and thereforei in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not committed any error in holdingthe appellant 8. 9. solely negligent for cause of accident and in fastening the entire liability upon the appellant t6 pay compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of the Tribunal. Undisputedly, the appellant did not appear in thewitness box to explain how and in what manner the accident had occurred; it was dark night when the accident had taken place; the appellant was duty bound to use headlight of the motorcycle to see the cyclist coming Trom opposite dir«;tion whieh he has not done; spot map (Ex. P/3) filed in the case also reveals the appellant went to his right side i.e. wrong side and dashed the cyclist. In view of above clear evidence some discrepancy in the statement of eye witness Khedu Ram led before the criminal court and the Tribunal would not make the cyclistalso negligent, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the appellant solely negligent for cause of said accident and in fastening the entire liability upon him to pay compensation to the respondent No.1. No other points have been raised. .— «*fr For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeat being devoid of substances is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. .i"' Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu