^ HSGH COURT OF CHHARTTiSGARH ATBILASPUR Coram:" Hon'ble IVIr. T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ IVJjsc. Appeal (Cl No.523/2008 t; ...^. Appellants : 1. Roop Singh, S/oBhakose,aged Claimants about40years 2. Sukvariya Bai, W/o Roop Singh, aged about 35 years -3. Ravi, S/o Roop Singh. aged about 06 years, MJnor 4. Ramu, S/o Roop Singh, aged bout 04 years, Minor 5. Ku. Rekha, D/o Roop Singh, aged about 02 years, Minor Appellant No.3 to 5 mlnor through legal guardian father Roop Singh Ai! Caste of Rathore, resident of ViiIage-Bhadaura, P.W. Goureia, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Akash @ Gunnu, s/o Ambika Prasad Namdev, aged about 21 years, R/o Tikarkala (Samarapara) P.S. Goureia, Tahsi-Pendra Road, Bilaspur (CG) Owner : 2. Ramesh Kumar Goya, S/o Kriparam Goyal, aged about 48 years, R/o Gourela, P.S. Goureia, District Bilaspur (CG) insurer : 3. The Oriental jnsurance Company Limited, Divisiona! Office in front of High Court, Bilaspur, District- Biiaspur(CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 ResRondents Driver Present: ' yhr!'Uh?reh(3Fa'Mislira,counseiTorT:he"appe!lante.' None for respondents No.1 & 2 thoughserved. Shri A.K. Athaiey, counsei for the respondent No.3. ilOrder (Passed on 5tn of February, 2010) Per Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma. J By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988, the appeliants have chalienged the iiiegallty and propriety of dismissal oftheclaim petition dated 24.01,2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth the'Tribuhal'), Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur in ciaim caseNo.37/2006, whereby the Tribunai has dismissed the petition for claim of compensation on account of motor accident of Mattu Bai dueto whlch she died on 17.03.2006. (2) As per pleading of the parties, Smt Mattu Bai is the mother of the appsltent No.1, mother-in-iaw of appeilant .No.2. and grant mother of appellants No.3 to 5. Deceased Mattu Bal was going for se!!ing vegetables on 17.3.2006. Respondent No.1, who was drivlng the motor cycle/BajaJ Boxer bearing No.CG/10 B-3706 (henceforth the 'vehicle) in a rash negiigent manner, dashed the deceased Mattu Bai and injured her. She was admitted in the hospital, where she dled. Compensatlon of Rs.9,20,000/- was claimed. it is also pleaded that respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehjcle and the vehlcle was insured with the respondent No.3 at the time of accident. (3) Respondent No.1 has denled the aiiegation and specifically pleaded that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and that the respondents are not Ilabie for payment oi'damages. (4) On the basls ofaverments, issues were frarned. After affordlng an opportunlty of hearing to the parties, the Trsbunal has dismissedthe ciaim petition on the ground that appellant has not proyed the fact that the deceased IVIattu Bai died on account of rash and negiigent driving of respondent No.1. (5) Heard Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appeltants, perused the Impugned award and the records of the Court beiow. (6) Leamed/counsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued that Geetaram Rathore DW-2, who was present at the scene of occurrence. has seen the accident He, aiong with other persons, caught hold the respondent No.1 along with the vehicie and has produced them in Pollce Statlon-Goureia just after the accident took piate. Respondent No.1 has aiso admitted the fact that some persons carried him and produced in the Police Station aiong v/rth the vehicle ^^.. .^ ^ on the ground that'he made an accident. But the Tribunal has not considered this fact which is sufficient for drawing an inference that respondent No.1 has dashed the deceased Mattu Bai and caused her death. (7) According to the F.l.R (Ex.P-2), some unknown. motor cycle driver has dashed the deceased Mattu Bai on 17.3.2006 at about 10.30. a.m. The evidence of Geefa Ram Rathore DW-2 revealed that he aiong with otherpersons chased the respondent No.1 and finaiiy they produced him aiong with the vehicle in the Police Station-Goureia. AIthough respondent No.1 has deposed that whiie he was going to Goureia for getting his vehicie repaired at 5.00 p.m., then the same persons took him to the Poiice Station Gourela. The appeilants have aiso fil.ed a copy of seizure memo Ex.P-4, which reveals that on 18.3.2006, at about 5.30 a.m, a vehicie was selzed from the respondent No.1, which goes toshow that acddent took piace on 17.3.2006 at about 10.30 a.m 3 kms away from the Police Station- Gourela and the vehicle was selzed on 18.03.2006 at about 5.30. p.rn. i.e. after a lapse of over 30 hours after the accident. This is not a case, in which the vehicle was seized or produced before the Police Station. Secondly, according to ocuiar evidence, the respondent No.1 and the motor cycle v^ere produced before the Poiice Station on the same day. It is disbeiieved that the respondent was caught hoid by the witnesses aiong with the vehide and there Is no evidence to connect the respondent with the accident that he is the person who caused the accident. The evidence adduced on behalf of the appeilants is not sufficient to discharge the burden that respondent No.1 has dashed the deceased Mattu Bai and caused her death. Priya (8) On ciose scrutiny of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegaiity in arriving at the above finding. We find no substance in this appea!, which is iiabie to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge