f9 t BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NO. [l^ OF 2004. i^iw.'.& .-s'asa' APPELLANT •NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 RESPONDENT; aui :- Divisional Manager, /' United India Insurance Company Ltd., Main Road, Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS :-1. Govind Narayan Pandey, son ofLate Shri G.L. Pandey, aged 38 years,resi- dent ofUslapur, Gokhlanala, Village Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS ^2; Ganeshram Sahu, son ofGovind Sahu, aged about 29 years, Vehicle Owner & Driver, Ramgarh, Mungeli, resident of Mungeli, District BiSaspur (C.G). NON-APPLICANT N0.1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION1730F MQTQR VEHICLES ACT 1988 c^9 *LSCANT Divisiona! Manager, United insurance Company Ltd. Gov'nd another. Naravan Pandev & APPEALUNDEE_SECTiQN 173 Of THE.MOTOR VEHICU ACT. •toea iff&&, Shri H.8. Agrawai, SeniorAdvocais with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counse! for the sppelisnt. None for resoonaani No.1. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, counsei on behalf of Shri Ravind Agra.wal, counsel for respondent No.2. (Passsd on 12th day ofJuty, 2S10) Thls is Insurer's appeai against the award dated 26-08- 2004 passed by Tenth Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Biiaspur (for short 'the Tribunai') in ciaim case No.06/2004 wherebv and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,97,000/- has been awarded for the injuries sustained by the ciaimant. 2. The facts in brief are as under: On 11-01-2003, when the claimant i.e. respondent No.1 was going from Bstaspur to Uslapur by his motor cycle, the offendlng vehicle Maxi-cab bearing registration No. C.G. 10- A/2130 coming from Uslspjjr-Mungeli, dashed the motor cycle as a result of which the plaimant sustained 'multiple serious injuries and was permanentiy disabied and-the motorcycie'was also lasecs. 3. The eiaimant by fiting an appljcation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') ciaimed Rs.15,65,000/- as compensation aaainst the driver-cum-owner of ^ the vehicle i.e. Maxi-cab and the appelianVinsurance Company for the injuries sustained by him In the said accident. The respondsnt owner and the appellant/insurance Company have pleaded in their written statements that the cialmant himself was negtigent in the accident. The accident occurred due to rashand negligent driving by the claimant and, therefore, the claimant had also contributed to the cause of accident. 4. Learned Tribunai on close scrutiny of the evidence ted, materiai placed and submissions made held that respondent No.2 was responsible for the said accident and not claimant, assessed the amountof compensation as Rs.2.97,000/'- and awarded the same along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. 5. Learned counsef appearing for the appeilant wouid contend that as per F.1.R. (Ex. P-1), there was head on collusion between the motorcycle and the Maxi-cab and, therefore, the learned Tribunat has erred in not holding claimant also guilty of contributory negligence. 6. I have heard learnedcounsel for the parties, perused the av/ard and record ofthe Tribunai. 7. Undisputed'y, the appellant/lnsurance Company as weli as respondent. No.2/owner-cum-driver of the vehicle did not examine any witness to substantiate their pleading of contributory negligence, even as per FIR (Ex. P-1), the said accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving by respondeni- No.2. Nothing has been brought in the cross- examination to suggest that the cfaimant had also contributed to the cause of negligence. -.ln such circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding respondent No.2 alone responsible for the accident.-- in the consldered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is based on evidence available on record and the contentions raised by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 9. No other points have been raised during course of arguments or in the memo of appeal. 10. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance is iabte to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, the amount avi/arded shall be payabie with interest @ 6% per annum as the pena! interest couid not be permissible. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judse r