IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CBBIATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0.- ^^ OF^OO^- (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT (2IAIMANT ^:Sajid Khan S/o Majid Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o- Masjidpara, Balod, Tehsil-Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS >f RESPONDENTS ^ON-CLAIMANTS / .^<^. ,.^^- ^^l^" •!.^;^ 1. Santu Ram Yadav S/o Gulab Ram Yadav, aged about 27 years, R/o- Indira Nagar, Dallirajraha^ Tehsil - Balod, District - Durg, (C.G.) [Driver of vehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.04 ZB/1436] Ashok Kumar Lohiya, S/o Murlidhar R/o - •^rf' Namdev Colony, Dallirajraha, Tehsil - Balod, District-Durg (C.G) [Registered owner ofvehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.04 ZB/1436] ^'" Insurance Company, The National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Supela, Bilai, District- Durg (C.G.) [Insurer of vehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.04 ZB/1436] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ^ ^F/^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTSSGARH : BILASPUR Divlsion Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri & Hon'bie Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. ADoeJlanV CIalmant Respondents/ Non~C!aimants Sajid Khan Versus Santu Rarn Yadav & Others (AppeaS under Section 173 ofthe yotor Vehicles Aof, 1988) Present:- S'hri S.P. Sahu and Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the appellant. Shri Dharmesh Shnvastava, counseS for the respondents .No.1 &2. Shri G.VX. Rao, counsei for the respondent No.3. PRDE^XORAU (Passed on this 20 day of January, 2010) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant appeal arises from the award dated 11-9-2007 passed by the Additional Nlotor Accldent CSalms Trlbunal, Balod, DJstrict Durg, in cSaim case No<43/2006, whereby the ctalm of the appeilant hereln 'was rejected on the ground that he has falted to estabilsh the fact that the Injury caused to the appeiiant was. on account of accident caused by Metador bearlng registration NO.CG-04-ZB-1436 {forshort "the offendsng vehlcle"). 2. The facts, in nutshei!, as projected by the appeilant, are that the appej!ant drivinig yaruti Van bearing registration - NO.CG-04-ZD-1658 was going to Dallirajhara. Near the road of viiiage Gujra and Danitoia, the offending vehlcle driven fay the "E rv n^? "2-- respondent No.1 caused serious Injury to the appeilant, which resulted into 30% permanent disabiiity. According to the appeilant, the Court beSow falled to examlne all the aspecte of the case In its true perspective and rejected the claim case of the appeilant. Thus, this appeal. 3. We have heard learned courssei appearina for ihe parties, perused the pleadlngs and the records ofthe Coyrt beiow. 4. The learned Judge having framed proper sssues on the basls of pieadings made by the parties came to the conclysion that the appellant has faiJed to establlsh that the Jnjyry whlch resuited into 30% dlsability was caused by the offending vehide. The appellant in his statement stated that near viilage 'Gujra and Danitola, he pernnlttad the offendlng vehicle to take over after glvlng space for that and thereafter the offendlng vehicie dlashed agalnst the Maruti Van driven by the appeliant, whjch resyStod into injury. 5. Learned Judge has found that in the Varyti Van several passengers were sittlng, but the appellant decSined to nam@ the persons and further fajled to examlne them. In th@ deposition, the appeilant stated that he has not sustained any injury by dashing of the oftendlng vehicle against the Varuti Van. Since the offending vehlde was over taking th© Varuti Van, the cSalmant couid not manage hls own vehide, the same hit the standlng tree and'caused injury. For that purpose respondent No.1 alone can be held as responslble, whlch has resulted jnto dashjng of Maruti Van against the standing tree. 9^ 6. - Having exarnined the depositlons and.other documents, the leamsd Judge has rightiy come to the • conciysion that the appeilant has faiied to prove that he has sustained Injury on account of the offending vehicle, but the same was sustained by rash and negiigent driving of the cialmant hlmseff, who was drlving the P^aruti Vars and hit the standing tree. The appeijant, it appea.rs, has deliberately not examl.ned the other passengers who were sittlng in the Marutl Van at the time of the incident.- The concJusion reached by the Court beiow Is just & proper and - does not warrant any interference of this Court, . 7. . In the result, the l^isc. Appeal is diBmlssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Gow Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge