HjGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ^ '^ PETITIONER NON -APPLICANT RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS WjjtPetition (227) No.4916of 2008 Abhishek Singh, aged about 33 years,Son of Shri S.S. Rajput, Caste Kshatriya, R/o. Vidya Up Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. Smt. Vimla, aged about 33 years, widow of Late Lakhan Lal. 2. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 16 years, son of late Lakahan Lal. 3. Suneeta, aged about 14 years, D/o. late Lakhan Lal. 4. Geeta aged about 12 years, D/o. Late Lakhan lal. 5. Amit aged about 10 years, son of Late Lakhan Lal, Respondents No. 2 to 5 are minors, through their natural guardian and next friend i.e., Respondent No.1 Smt. Vimla aged about 33 years, Wd/o. Late Lakhan Lal. All are residents of Khokhasa, Tahsil and P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 6. Keshav Singh aged about 23 years, son of Gajraj Singh, caste Gond, resident of Village Bakeli, Tah. and Distt. Umariya, P.S. Palli (MP). (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Bhagwati Kasyap, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon this8th day of September, 2008) The petitioner is owner of the HGV Tipper vehicle No. CG 10 C 04532. bearing engine No.KDH 343273, chassis No. KDH 100904, which was involved in the accident. The claimants, being legal heirs and dependent members of the deceased Lakhan Lal, filed an application for compensation •Ijnoo |eui eqi ejojeq uoiiejepisuoo Ouipued ||iis si jeueuu eqi •Ai!|B69||r jo Aiiujjyu! Aue LUOJJ jejj.ns ^ou seop ^uepuodsej A^ied B se AuedujoQ eouejnsu) 9L|i peeidLui 01 ^Bss^^^u iou SBM }\ }B\J[} ^inoo leui eqi j.o uoisn|ouoo eqi 'snqi '^ueppoe 941 ui p9A|OAUi epiqeA eqi p jequjnu sisseqo pue 9UJ6U9 eq} jeeq lou ssop 'epiqeA pies sq^ p JSUMO 9L|i si oqM 'jeuoi^ed eqi Aq UMoqs Aoiiod eouejnsui 9L|i ieqi luspiAe si }\ 'o^ejeqi pepuedde siueiunoop pue s6uipe9|d 9L|} pesmed 'jeuo^ed eqi joj. Ouueedde [esunoo peujeei pjeeq 6u!AB|-| (g . -6uue9q jeq^in^ JQ^ peoe|d SBM jeyeuj sqi pue pepefej SBM AuedLUOQ eouejnsui 941 jo , lU9LUp69|dLU! jo^ uoi^oiidde Q(fi 'snqi •jeuoi^ed eqi 0} p9iuej6 GLUII luepijj.ns eijdsep 'uoipejjoo Ajesseoeu e>|eLU 0} peuiioep Auediiioo eouejnsui 941 '(Z/d QJnxeuuy) lueiunoop eqi ui euop uoipejjoo |eo!qdej6odA} ^essooeu }96 0} J9uoii!}9d eqi 0} Aiiun}joddo luepiyns 6u\/\\B jeye IUOLU uo uoiiejepisuoo joj Ji6fuer 'ieunqui SLUIBIQ luepioov J0io|/\| icuoiiippv ©41 0} JOUBUJ 9^ ^oeq pewLueJ pue QOOZ-ZI.-l.l. P^ep jepjo 941 peqsenb ZQOZ-Z-91. psiep jepjo Aq ijnoo siqi -pnoo siq^ ejo^eq ^QOZ P 9S3 'ON (0) uoi^ed WM. Guieq uoi^ed e p9|y jeuoi^ed eqi (p9A8u66B Ouieg 'ijnoo |eui 941 Aq pepefej SBM uoiieojiddeeqi 'Aoijod Qouejnsui 9qi ui uoipejjoo Ajesseoeu >t99s 01 eiuii 9LUOS jo^ iq6nos jeuoi^ed eqi 'e^eisiuj |eo!qdej6odAi 0} enp UMoqs A|6uojM 9J9M Aoi|od Qouejnsui eqi ui uMoqs jeqLunu sisseqo pue jequjnu euiOue eqi se jojje |BO!qdej6odAi e se/w ejeqi ^eqi si jeuoi^ed equo eseo eqi (^ •Auedujoo eouejnsu) eq^ qii/w pejnsui iou SBM epiqeA pies eqi icqi punoj6 eqi uo pesoddo SBM uoiieoiidde eqi -Auedujoo 9ouejnsu| pies eqi qiiM pejeisiOej seyw 9|oiq9A pies eyi icqi punoj6 eq^ uo luepuodsej A^ied e se (^Auedtuoo eouejnsui,, 'ijoqs joj) peiiuu!"! Ausdujoo eouejnsui lejeueo pjequjon IOIQI 6u!pB9|diu! joj. uoiieojidde ue epeuj jeuoi^ed eqi •ji6[uer 'ieunqui SIUIBJO }U9ppov J0io|/\| leuoiiippv P ijnoo 9Lll u! 8961. 'PV S9P!L19A J0io|/\| 9qi p 99^ uoipas p suoisiAOjd eqi jepun -z- ^^- i "^. tSR;. •:^€^^' -^- The petitioner may lead evidence and produce other documents in support of his contention, if so advised. This court is of the opinion that there is no perversity or irregularity warranting interference with the impugned order. Raju 4) Without expressing any ppinion on merit and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge