I ZEN TI-E H16}! COURT OF CHHATTIE‘EARH JUDiCAaTURE AT APPELLMTS RE$P0NI3ENTS b— 1. gW/ / BILA‘SPIR WA. No. 35$ /2004 i 1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Mahrakhan Lal, Aged 36 years,0ccupation Teacher, R/o Village T'arra, P.S. Utai ( as mentioned in cause title of Judgement but in fac t, it is poliwe station Patan), Tahsil Patan, District Durg(C.G.) ,2. Upendra Kumar EE/o Manrakhan /Lal, Aged 36yeazs, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Tarrak P.S. Utai ( as mentioned in catise title o£ judgement but in f act it is police staticn Patan ) , Tahsil Patan District Burg (C.G.) EELS—v.3. mt. Chandrika bai Qajpal,aged 9 36 years, W/o Late Lakhan Lal Gaipal, 2. Kumari Maheshwari D/d: Late Aged 15 years, Kumari PEshpa, D/o Late :han 5a]. Gajpal, Aged 13 years, Kumari ‘Bindu, D/o Late Lakhan Lal Gajpal, Aged 12 years, e: ,4 Respondent no. 2 to r5 Min Through next iriend Mothe; ‘ Lakhan Lal Gajtal. Q g 3‘. La} Kasaasieain 'Yogesh Kumar 3/ aged 11 years,- Ma]. Gajpal, or r o Late Lakhan ” ni .2. .. mt. Chanria bai (o Late Shri Lh al Gal M / oxra i 1 Ro Hathkhpa Uta, . Utai, istrict Durg , Perme R/o Vilge aatrod, ost Khopli, P.S i, Disti Durg (C.G .) Sohan‘al Sahu S/ Lhoe au, age 3 years Ro Viag Gaaadih, Ut‘‘, T & is rg (C.G.) 7. amsh Jaiswal S/ Shri Ramhwar Jaisw, d esent Resid of Aija Pr ent d C aa idi ist c (C es a: h Durg , Dr i t Durg ’.G.) e A‘ 3( 08 ee L' Fve Thousand TO Hundr end Eioht Ru ees C-nlv y Court Fee afEjJeed 2O Rs. e WPW UNDE SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT dk W akan E ajp, P.S D annt la Mih P . Uta rct \ I ‘ :6. ii o atkr ' ‘ Sh d 3 , / lle RS. ai ahsil Dtt. Du Kle o es al Age 34 years, Claim in g&a1 Valued, at RS. 75, 2 /— Thr akheévenw i W ed / R ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS‘PUR DlVlSION BENCH: HQN BLE MR IM QUDDUSI & HON BLE MR NAWAL KISHORE AGARWAL ‘lJ M No 38812004 Appeiiants Jitendra Kumar & another Vs Re-spondents Smt Chandrlka Bax Gama! & others P resent Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate for the appell‘ants. None for respondent No1 Mr Qantosh Yadu Advocatedfor respondent Nos ’3 to 5 ‘ V (2"J5 gipre?;e2r2atln o)“ . iThis appeal under section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appetlants-owners against’the award idated t 03.01.2004 passed by the Iearned 15‘ Additional Motor {Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Durg (CG) (for short ‘the plaims itrlbunal’). in Claim Case No.121/2002 thereby holding the lappellants herein liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,75.208f— as icompensatio‘n to the claimants for the accidental death of deceased Lakhanlal. . Facts ofthe case, in brief, are that respondents No.2 to i5. who lare i wife, daughter & son of the dec‘eased Lakha‘nlal l respectively‘ have filed a claim petition before the claims ltribunal stating therein that on 15.4,2002 deceased Lakhanlal along with his colleague Shivkumar was going on his Luna moped to Telecom Factory, Bhilai. When they reached near Utai Chowk, a tempo bearing registration No.MP24-T-O(l64 coming from the Durg side and driven by the non-applicant No.1 in a rashand’negligent manner, dashed the Luna moped of the deceased: as a‘result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious; He was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where he was declared dead. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.21,97,900f- on various heads including on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased was 45 years r .of age and was earning Rs.97,320f- per annum etc. «(mmftmm . Non apphcant No 1 has filed his reply beTore the claims tribunal denying occurrence of any accident by his vehicle ! . N n applicants No 2 & 3 who are appeHants herem have also filed their written statement before the claims tribunai denying the clalm of the claumants on that the ground that Infact Mmrdor bearing registration number CG07-T-p161 dashed the Luna M ped ofthe deceased as a result of which hecame in front of the vehicle in question and on seeing this, the driver of tempo inl‘question stopped the vehicle with a view to help the delceased. . Lejasn'ed claims tribunal after hearing the parties in the matter anid considering the evidence available on record allowed the claim petition of the claimants and awarded a sum 0f Rs 3 (5 028l-Vlde impugned award . We have heard learned counsel tor the parties and perused the l impugned award as also the record of the claims tribunal. t . Thge plea taken by the appeliants before the claims tribunal was that the tempo in question had not met any accident and there wa’s only confusion But the non applicant No 1 who was driver ofthe said tempo and present on the spot has not stated so in his‘ written statement or in the statement recorded before the claims tribunal and he has simply denied the accident by saying that he has not dashed any Luna A criminal case was also redistered against the tempo in question and its driver and this fact was admitted by the owners and the driver both Futthermore Shivkumar (AW-2) who was traveling With the deceased on the tateful day, has specifically stated in his statement that near Ghoda gate a tempo bearing registration nu ber MP24 T 00b4 coming from Durg side dashed the front wh el of the Luna as a result Lakhanlal fall down and he became unconscious . On the basis of aforesatd discussions we see no illegality or im ropriety in the impugned award passed by the claims tribunal concerned Therefore the appeal being sans merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed No order as to costs H i %i .t L x " ‘ ' ' ‘ l” i§§s‘ saw i I N.K.Agrawrarlr ‘-- Judge ‘ Reshang k., i? w i i i i i 2