3M_THE HIGH CQURT_ OP CHHATTISGARH &T BILASPUR M.A. No. ^ 4^ /2003. c;^^ BsnG'1 1 ', APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT / Kadheshyaa @ Radhe s/o Sitatobalak, age 21 years, Caste-Oraon, r/o Narlseli, Occupat.l.on-Agriculture, Oistt. Koria, C.G. V__E_R 3 U S /RESPONDENTS / CLATMANTS .s^. SurtanJ.ya Bai wd/o Late aiarmpal, age 57 years, Caste-Koir. 2. Siarikar Prasad Kushwaha, s/o Late Ebarmpal, age 39 years, ^. ^ teste-Kolr. ..^^" 3. Vljaysbankar Kushwaha s/o I<ace ,ci'%?v? ,^.^>^ ^•^'^^'...•^" •-•' ^ v' «»^ Eharinpal, age 35 years, Caste- Koir. All r/o village Targawan, P.s. Patna, TebsJ.1 Ba.i.kanthpur, Blstt. Korla, C.G. APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 173_OF.THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT iNS' HtSH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR Sinote Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS MA.No. 848/2003 Radheshyam @ Radhe Versus Surtaniya Bai and othere Shri Shal^raj Sinha, counsel for the appellant Shri Maiay Shrivastava, Advocate appearing on behatf of Miss Sharmila Singhai, counsel ft>r reqronctente No.1 to 3. APPEAL UNEMER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ORALORDER (29.09.2010) The fxesent app^l under Sectton 173 of Motor Vehictes Act has been preferred by the owner of the vehide against whom tt»eciaims Tribunat h^ passed award of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the ctaimante. "I (2) The claimante are the ledat representatives/defsndants of late Dharmpat who sustain injuries in the accident on 21-07-2000 and uttimately diedon 29-12-20e. (3) The daims Tribunal has hehl that the death of Uie deceased was not on account of ttie injuries sustained by him in ttie accident, however smce the accident and invdvement of e vehfcte betonging to ttie appeltantwas found to be proved and it wasalso proved that the deceased was admitted in the Hospital for 18-19 days immediately after the accident. the tribunal has awareted Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the ciaimante. (4) The Tribunat has reliad on the bills/voucheis/prescriftfons submitted before the claims Tribunal from Ex.P/17 to P138 and has conclucted that apart from the said expenditure ttie decessed must have been given healthy diet /-touMaitua^ni^i. ^ ...(^.^iW-., --2.- and ancitlaiy arrai^emente during his treattment for whteh nonnalty biBs and vouchers are not given or kept. (5) In the opjnfon of this Court the findmg recorded by the claims Tribunat does not appear to be perverse or illogiral. The award is only for Rs.20,000/-y , the awellant had deposited Rs.10,0(XV- at ttie Sme of fiting this appeat, however there is no interim oreter ty ttiis Court sta^ng the recovery of the balance amount. (6) For alt the above mentioned reasons, this Court is <rf ttie (^iinton that this appeal has no substence whfch deserves to be and is hweby dfemissed. Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ¥~ \