AWELLANT i ‘ ‘ \ ‘ i u t RESPONDENTS BIHARI RAM VERSUS x 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, ‘ SHIVSHANKAR SAHU 85 ANOTHER . Sdl- DI-HRENDRA ,MISHRA Judge {7. I 04/ 200’? Misc. APPEAL N0. 133 OF 2004 Pos'r FOR JUDGMENT ON I? -04-2007 HEGH COURT OF CHHAT‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR a MISC. A?PEAL KG. 133 (3F 2004 ‘2. THE ORIENTAL 1NSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE SADAR ROAD, NEAR STATE BANK OF‘ INDIA, AMBIKAPUR, DISTT. SURGUJA (C.G.) (INSURER) s Prasent: Shri AK. Shukla, counsel for tha appElIaxn. ‘ Shri SK. Mishra, counsd for re$pondeut N02. J i} D G M E N T (Delivexe& on 1% Aprii 2007) This appsal is directed. against 11m award dated ‘23. 122003 glassed by II Additional Motor Accident ClaimS Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surgiifa in M.A.C.C. No, 38/02 Whem’by application of the appaIlaILt/claimant for compensation under Ssction 166 of tho Motor VehicloS Act (hominafter rofsrrod to as ‘the Act’) has been rejectod. ’> Case of the claimant boforo the Tribunal was that on 27.1.1999 a1; about 2.00 pm. hf: W3S going to Surajpur by hi5 bicyclo. Respondent No. 1 driving his Vogpa Scooter bcan‘ng Nov APPELLANT ; CLA§1MANT BIHARI RAM, Sfo NANKA, CASTE- 3 HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 55 yEARS, OCCUPATloN—AGRICULTURE, LABOURER, R/O VILLAGE KESHAVNAGARJISJ§SHRAMPUR ’ TAHSIL SURAJPUR, Dlsm“, V . SURGUJMQG.) VERsUS REspaNaENTs ‘ 1. SHIVSHANKAR SAHU, S/O BHARAT 45 NON—APPLICANTS RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCCUR¥HON -— AGRHJ55WH§L SERVKH; R/o VILLAGE PAMPAPUR, Rs. 3:, TAHSHL SURAJPUR, {HSLL SURGUJAKLGQ (OWNER) )ix M‘P.27—C/2203 rashly and neghgEntly daslmd ths app€11a11t, as a rasult of which 1:116 appallant r€C€ived grievous injuri€s on différent paris; 0f the body. However, 116 was treated in the hospital allcl accordingly, the petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,G0,000/— wafs tiled before the Tn'bunal. Respondent No, 1 was proceeded ex—parte. Respondent No‘ 2}]11sura11ee Company in its reply admitted the insurance of vehicle No. M.P.27—C/ 2203 and denied rest of the facts aven’ed in P5 the claim petition and Stibmitted that the ineured vehicle No. M.P.27—C/ 2203 was not involved in the accident and an unknown ‘ motor was in fact involved in the accident. Respondent. N0. 1 did not have valid driving licence and therefore, respondent No. 2 was not liable for navment of compensation. u n o. After framing various issues, learned Claims Txibunal by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition with a finding that appellant/claimant Bihari sustained grievous injuiies by some unknown vehicle, it is not proved that respondent No. 1 Shivshankar on 27.1.1999 while driving scooter Nov MP. 27’- C/ 2203 rashly and negligently clashed Bihari Rain. The Tribunal assessed the damages snii'ered by appellant/claimant at i Rs.4-G,OQOJ - but further held that he is not entitled to recover the same from respondents in view of the finding recorded against issue No. 1. While deciding issue No. o it has been held that the claim petition of the appellantklahnant was .not barred by limitation and it has been fulther decided that insurance policy was valid on the date of accident and respondent No. 2 has not been able to establish that there was any breach of policy condition by respondent No. 1 and with these findings the claim petition has been dismissed. r: G 4. Leanied counsel for the appellant] Claimant submitted that the claim petition has been dismissed on hypothetical consideration by recording incomect findings. The Tribunal has relied upon investigation report of the police which is not a conclusive piece of evidence and therefore, the award impugned cannot be sustained. 5. On th6 othsr hand, hailed c01111361 for the mspandent No. 2 Shri Suzyaka11t Mishra, submittad that the claimant hasgutterly failad to prove that vehicle belonging to mspondalt N9. 1 was invoked in thi: accident and t11€ fmdingpf the lcarned Tn'buna1 in this regard is baS€d on the evidence avzdlable on record, which does not cali for interference. 6. I have heard counsel for the resyective partieS and permsed the materiai available on record‘ a‘ 7. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.8.2003 had allowed the application of respondent No. ’2 / Insurance Compgmy and pennitted it to take defence 011 other grom1ds also. Record of the criminal case wa‘e requisitioned at the instance of the claimant. Learned Claims Tribunal after coneiclem‘ng the statements of Bhiari {AW- 1), Heeradhan, S/o Bihan' (AW—2) and Ramnarayan (AW—3), has arrived at the conclusion that Heeradhan has lodged the reeort as per instructions of his father and he had not seen the accident himself personally and the report was lodged by him against unknown motorcyclist. From perusal of the case diary of crime No. 29/99, the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the police has submitted final report as after investigation the motor cycle involved in the accident could not be traced and on these grounds, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the witnesses examined by the appellantfclaiinant in support of his claim petition were not reliable and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. There is no illegality or infirmiw in the award impugned which warrants interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance desewes to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. DI-DRENDRANESPM Judge . Sd/— /