A£fi, ^Sto) Cl Versus Gopi Ram, S/o Manglu Ram Keivat, Age 35 Years, R/o Village Hirapur, Tahsil Balod, District - Durg (C.G.) Hiralal S/o Baldeo Sahu, Age 40 Years, R/o Village Hirapur, Talisil Balod, Distript - Durg (C.G.) Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the appellant None for the respondent (Dated 23rd February, 2006) T'his appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act"} is dmected agamst fhe award dated 31/3/2005 passed b}-. fhe Additional Motor Accideiit Claims Tribiuial, Balod, ia Claim Case No. 35/2004. o On 22.3.2005, fhe appeUaiit whfle workiag as labour, was sitting in fhe Tractor-TroUey beaiing registration No. CG 04 ZC 8488 and CG 04 ZC 8489. The said Tractor-TroUev was driven bv respondent niet with aii accident due to h is rash aad negligent driviag, AppeUant received injuries who assessed coiiipensatiou at Rs.69,000/- (Rupees Sixtv- Nme Thousand Onl^ and for recoven" oftlie same, filed a petition iinder Section 166 ofthe Act. 3. Respondent has adiaitted tjaat he is owner of tlie Tractor-TroUey beariag registration No. CG 04 ZC 8488 aad CG 04 ZC 8489. The Tractor-TroUey was beiiig used by hnn for transportation of Bolder, M'urani etc. However, respondent denied fhe claini bf tlie appellaitt and pleaded fhat he tias already lioi-ne the Medical expenses uicurred by appellant towards his treatiuent. 4. AppeUant ui support of his plea adduced oral and docuiaentarv" evidence whereas respondent did not adduce anv evidence. Leanied Tribiuial after appreciatmg fhe evidence, held tliat appellant has faile.d to prove fb.at respondent was driving tlie vehicle at tlie tiiae ofaccident, fherefore, disinissed fhe petition. 5. Alfliougb oral evidence of Gopi Ram (PW/1) is contradictoi^-. In examuiation-ia-chief he has deposed fhat respondent Heeralal was driving the vehicle, but ia cross- exaaaiaation, he has stated fhat at fhe tirae of accident, fhe vehic'le was not driven bv TTJTP.. Heei-alal did not enter iato witaess box to deny tliat he was not driying fhe vehicle at fhe time of accident or to estabUsh tliat fhe accident did not occur as a i-esult of rash or negligent driviug. Ex. P-5 is the suinuian' sheet. Respondeal- pleaded his guilt in crmiiaal trial whereia he has adinitted that he was driving tlie tractor-ti-oUev wifb rash aiid negUgent Biaiiner and as a result of fb.at accident took place and Gopi Ram. was injiired, Althougb oral evidence addiiced by appeUaiit was contradictoi^' biit from. adniission lecorded by Criiu.iual Cdurt, lack of evidence to support th.at the accident was not a resiilt of rash or negUgent driving that apart admissioa' of respondent Uiat he spent tlie niedical expenses, safely it caa be established Uiat flie accident took place as a result of respondent's rasll and negligent driving. 6. The vehicle raet witli accident is owTned bv resooudent and the accident took place as a resiilt of rash ajid negUgent dri.viii.g, tlierefore., who was driving the vehicle was not very inuch inaterial because owner of tlie vehicle caiinot absolve &-OECI his liabilih' to pay coiupensation if it is proved tliat the clamiant is entifled for coinpensation as a result of tliat accident. 7. Froin the stateaient of Gopi Ram. (P¥//1), Kamta Prasad (PW/2), Smt. Chandrika Bai (PW/3) aad Harichand (PW/4) and Medical examitiation report Ex. P-9, it is proved that appeUaaT Gopi Ram received uijuries in the accident aad he was m.edically treated for Ms injuries. For treatmeat, he was also admitted in flie hosnital. lu order to support the aature of itiiuries, nofhins has been brought on recoKl, however, appeUant as a result of Bijiir;" Iiad iaciirred expeaditure towards raedical treatment. AppeUant m. his stateiaent accepts that around Rs.8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- was spent by respondent towarcls his ruedical expenses. Ex. P-2, is raeiuo iti support of purchase of Biedicuie costiag Rs. Rs.1860/- for the treatiaent of Gopi Ram. There is no proof that fhis aciount has also beea paid by the respoudent. Injuries sustauied by the appeUant were not severe or pennaaent, tlie substaiitial expenditure had akeady been bome by tlie respondeat. The period It'p of adinission in the hospital is about 4 to 5 days, therefore, considermg afl fhese facts if total sum of Rs.5,000/- iacludmg inedical expenses iaciured by tlie appeUaii.t vide Ex. P-2 is allowed to fhe appeUaat that will be just and proper coiapensation iii the iastsuit case. 8. In the result, the appeal is psu-tly allowed. Respondent shatl pay to the appellant Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousaud Onh' ) witli interest @ 9% from 3.7.2004, tffl reatization and Rs.2000/- towai-ds cost of the Tribunal as weU as ADpeUate Court, Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge