T BILASPUR A HIGH COURT OF CHRATTI$GARH MisgApgeal No. 506(2005 SB: Hon’ble shri Justice R.L. Jhanwa: Munu s/o Dewadi and another PELLANTS A2,! Versus Kanhaiya @ Kairu Sahu and another ‘ ORDER __._..‘———-— Post for order on P .1 1.20 lo/W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR slNGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI RJMIHANWAR, J. ’ Misc. Appeal No. 506f2005 1. Munu s/o Dewadi aged about 42 years 2*. Smt. Devmoti W/o Munu aged 38 years, Both r/o village Ichhapur P.S. SaIaipaJi, Distlict Mahasamund (CG) APPELLANTS Claimants VERSUS 1 Kanhaiya @ ajxu Sahu s/o Banshi Sahu aged 34 yeals, R/o Ichhapur P.S.Sa1aipa1i, Distn'ct Mahasamund (CG) 2 Mahesh Kumar, s/o Krishnachand Nayak, Aged 32 years, R/o village Ichhapur, P.S. Saraipali Dishict Mahasamund (CG) RESPONDENTS MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT a Appearance: HWMWJ‘ Shn' Neeraj Prgd‘han, Advocate a§£pears on behalf of Shri Raghvendra Pradha}: counsel for the appellants. Shri Manoj Pamnjape, counsel for the mspondents. ORDER (8a.; 1 .20 10) ch R.L.Jhanwar, J.“ The claimants’ have filed this appeal against the awani of dismissal of the Claim Petition by the 2nd Additional Motor K K 1d G ‘Accid‘ents Claims ’I‘n‘bunal, Mahasamund (CG) (for Short ‘the Tribunal? passed on 11. 1.2005 in Claim Case No. 47/ 2003 2L Brief facts of the casc are that on 12.1.2003 at Gmm Ichhapur, son of the claimants namely —Satya Kumar @ Santram was going to see Ramleela to village Saraipali along with his other mends, at that time, while Satya Kumar was climbing for sitting in tho‘ uactor uolley, Drive§§anhaiyalaL who was driving the Tractor ‘Tmlley No.8KWO/8914 and CG 06IZD235‘1 started the tractory * due to which, Satya Kumar fell down and come into contact with the rear Wheel‘ of the trolley and died on the spot. A claim petition, claimihg compensation of Rs.2,99,200/- against the tespondents was nled by the claimants, which has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the claimants have med this appeal. 3. Respondents have Eed a written statement, stating that they are not responsible for the accident and they have been falsely implicated in the case due to party—bandi. The ttactor trolley was not insmed with the Insuxance Company; thexefore, Insurance Company has not been made a party. After appreciating the evidence and hearing both the parties; learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition nled by the claimeants. .e 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the accident took place due to use of the tractor trolley as motor vehicle. Driver of the vehicle was negligent; he started the vehicle when son of the claimants — Satya Kumar, aged about 14 years, was climbing for sitting in the trolley; he has not seen whether all the persons have climbed up on the tollexor not and started the vehicle. He argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has also not seen this aspect of the evidence led before it and dismissed the claims petition. The Tractor is belonging to respondent No.2 and respondent No. 1 was n\.L» _ . 9 riving the tactor, therefore, they are responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. 5. 1011 the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the accident has not occurred due to negligence of the driver; no FIR was lodged immediately by the chimants. Appenant No.1— father of the deceased has given an affidavit Ex. D/i, in whichQ‘ he himself stated his: son has died on 12.1.2008 suddenly and he made cremation formalities at his own will. He also stated that some unlmown person has falsely xeported the matter to Police ahout the accident of his son and has falsely implicated Jayktishna Nayak. ‘ The appellant has clearly stated that nobody has pressun'zed him and the cremation function of his son has been completed at his own will. Learned counselvfiirther stated the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as them is no evidence i regarding accident by the tractor trolley and the claimants have cremated their son without giving informau‘on to the Police, which seems that they have falsely implicated the respondents. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is clear that one Kotwar has reported that matter to the Police about the accident, in which, he has stated that Claimant- Munu and other persons of the village are going to cremate the deceased; when police reached to cremation spot, the cremation was overt There is no medical evidence or postmortem report to show how Satya Kumar died. Munu Sahu (AW-1) has stated that his son died due to motor accident; the tractor trolley was driven by respondent No. 1-Kanhaiyalal, while his son was climbing in the trolley, tractor was‘startedf‘due to which, his son fell down and come into contact with the rear Wheel of the trolley and died on the spot. He denied that he has given any amdavit, but he has admitted that before the Notaiy, he has signed document Ex. D/ 1. A 77 x/ d 1n this way, he has admitted that Ex. D/ 1 was s‘ ged and given by him. Aftcr seeing Ex. D/ 1, it is clear that it is an affidavit. sigled by Munu on 14.1.2003, in which, Munu has written that his son has died suddenly on 12. 1.2003. He has not stated anything about the accident by the motor vehicle. Thus, he himself has denied the faot of accident and now he is saying about the death of his son by motor accident Even if it is admitted to be true that his son has died due to motor accident, them is no medical evidence about the death 'and no postmorteni report is on tecord. Claimants have cremated theix son without giving information to the/Police, which also creates doubt; The claimants have failed to prove that their son has died due‘to motor accident. Anantram (NAW-Q) has stated about Ex. D1, which has been singed by him, that Munu’ himself. has given that afhdavit Ex. D] 1. Munu himself had gone to prepaie the affidavit and stated that his son has died suddenly and he cremated his son at his own will. Nobody has plessurized him; the Advocate who prepared the amdavit has mad over it to Munu and after hearing the contents of the affidavit, he singed it. In this way, this witness has supported that the death was not due to’ motor accident. lt is also clear hem the evidence of Munu that he was not able to prove that the death has occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of tractor trolley. It is clear hum the evidence that the tractor trolley was used for transportation of passengers, who were going to see Ramleela to village Saraipali. The deceased was also going to see Ramleela in that tractor trolley. ‘If it is admitted to be true that Satya Kumar has died due to motor accident, than also the Claims Tribunal has lightly written in paragraph 8 that the tractor trolley is not a passenger vehicle and therefore, the driver is not responsible to see whether each and every person has climbed up properly and taken place in the trolley or not and it cannot be held that the driver was responsible for the accident, but the deceased himself was responsible for it. / ,, ‘ Therefole, the Claims Tribunal has not ened in reaching t? this fmding. 7. ‘ Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of thc §new that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by (Elaims Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition $ed by the claimants for compensation against the respondents as the claimants were not able to prove their case. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to dismissed . and it is‘heieby dismissed. Sd/- ‘ KL. Jhanwa" 3 ‘ Judge #:‘d w