Dismissed

Ghasiya Ram and Anr. v. Ghosi Ram and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2010MA/1153/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Tribunal had denied compensation to the parents of a deceased driver, finding Amardas negligent. The Court held the appellants failed to establish that respondent Gosai Ram was driving the vehicle. The appeal was disposed of as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ghasiya Ram and Anr. Vs Ghosi Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

)) g, i

¶2

”’1

¶3

av HIGH COURT OF 6HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

M.A.No.1153 of 1998 ‘

¶5

{ Appenants Claimants

¶6

1 . Ghasiya Ram Slo Baharatt aged about 6O years.

¶7

Unkunwer Wlo Ghasuya Ram aged ‘ I about55 years

¶8

: ReSIdence of bath the abave Village a Gudelu PS & Tehsu Sarangam ¥ DisttRaigarh (MR) (now 0.6.)“

¶9

Versus

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Gosai Ram, Slo Than Singh, Ra£idence of Village, Badekhera,’ ~ P.S. & Tehsii' _ Sarangarh, DisttRaigarh.

¶12

Devprasad S/o Goverdhan Jaiswal ReSIdeme of Village Tapkra, Tehsu ,‘ Kunkun Dmt Ralgarh

¶13

The New lndla Msurance Co Lted ’ , g Dmsional omoe Transpon Nagar’ ‘L Korba Teh Korba Dlstt Bilaspur‘{ (MR) (now^cs.)

¶14

(Misc.^{AppeaiunderSectionW3of theMeterVehic‘ee Act,a1§88)}

¶15

DB: Hon’ble Mr.T.P.Shatma &’

¶16

Hon‘ble Mr.R.L.Jhanwar', J.J.

¶17

Piesent:-

¶18

Mr.Sunil Sahu, counsel fov the appellants.

¶19

None present for respondent No.1.

¶20

Mr.Roshan Verma, counsel appears on behalf of Mf.A.K.Prasad,

¶21

counsel for respondent No.2.

¶22

Mr.Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent^No.3.

¶23

ORDER ORAL .5(Paeeed^on3' Aug'usf,,201o}

¶24

‘ T P Shanna“

¶25

Challenge ln this appeal ls to^the award^dated1351998 passed^bythe Addltlonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for^{short‘theTnbunal} ),^Sakti then Dlstnct Bllaspur, ln Clalm Case No.10/95,^{wherebytheTnbunalhas} dismissed the claim petition^filedbythe appellants^onthe ground^that

¶26

_Z.‘

¶27

‘ deceased Amardas himseif was negligent in drivmg the vehicle therefore their parents are not entitled for any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Veh1cles Act 1988

¶28

¶29

1. Award Is rmpugned on the ground that white dismissing the clam petition the Tnbunal has not considered the fact that respondent No1 Gosal Ram was dnvrng the vehrote and has caused accident therefore parents^{ofdeceasedAmardasareentrttedforcompensatrononaccwntu~r} of death of therr son

¶30

As per pleading of the appellants on 3.4.95 respondent No.1 was drrvmg the tractor beanng registratlon number M P 26 B 9905 havrng Its 7’ trolley and by rash and negligent act caused death of Amardas who was srttlng In trolley of the tractor F I R was lodged and finally charge sheet was tiled. Father and Mother of deceased Amardas have fled claim petition^{forcompensationonaccountofdeathoftheirson.} Respondents g No.1 and 2 have denied the allegation and have speoiftoally pleaded that I; at the time of accident, deceased Amardas was driving. the vehicle and has committed negligence and caused accident he himself died as a result of his act therefore his parents are not enutled for any compensation for the act committed by their son Respondent No 3 has also denied the altegation and pleaded that parents of the deceased are ‘Both not entitled for any compensation the parties have led their evrdences After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties teamed Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused^theaward impugned and record of the Tribunal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case the appellants have succeeded for provrng the fact that Amawas was not drwing the vehicle but respondent N01 was dnving the vehicle and by his negiigent act, he has caused death of Amardashas a result of^.moton accident.

¶33

~ ~

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supmrted the award impugned.

¶35

ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf oftheparties.

¶36

-g/

¶37

Admittedly,^inthe present^case witnesses^{examinedbytheappeuants} Ie Gosal Ram (AW—1)^{andShlvprasad} (AW^{2§welenotpresentanthe} I spot The appeuants^{havenotexaminedanywanesswhowaspresent} _‘ on the spot Respondent^{No2hasexammedhimseifwhowaspresent} on the spot and^{wassittingInthetractorandhasalsolodgedtheF} I R has deposed In his evudence^that at the time of accident^Amardas ‘ Thrshrmself was^{dnvmgthevehicleandhediedasaresultofaccident} V wrtness has lodged the F l R In whlch It has been mentioned that: deceased^{Amardaswasdrlvmgthevehlcle} although cnmlnal^casehas: been registered^{agalnstGosalRam}

¶38

This ls a claim case^{ofcivilnature.Nostrict} poof^is reqwuitleQTWt the in the parties^{arerequiredtoprovetheirallegationsmadebythan};} present^{case,theappellantshavenotexaminedany“witnesswhohas} seen the^{accidentandwas} present^{atthetirneofaccident}Qnlvthe} person present^{atthetimeofaccidentwasrespondentNo.1GosaivRam} who has categorically^{deposedthatAmardas wasdrivingthevehicleand} ‘ even he has^{lodgedtheF.i.R.immediately,inwhichhekhasmentioned} I the fact^{thatAmardaswasdrivingthe vehicle.}

¶39

. The aforesaid evidence is not sufficient for drawingninference that. respondent^{No.1wasdrivingthevehicleand} Amardas^was notLdrivlng ' ’

¶40

the vehicle.

¶41

. After appreciating^{theevidenceavailable} on^{record, learned} Tribunal^has arrived at a^{findingthatatthe} time^{ofaccident,’Amardaslwasdrivingthe} I7 vehicle, therefore,^their parents^{werenotentitledforanycompensation} for the^{actcommittedbytheirsonAmardas.} The Tribtmal has^rtghtty arrived at a^{findingandrightlydismissedtheclaimpetition.} y

¶42

On close scrutiny of the evidence we-do not find any iiiegaiity in the
award impugned Consequently, the appeal being deVOid of merit is
liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed No order as to costs
' ‘ ‘ l
.ir<br>W, Sd/—
J
T' P Sh , ,1 / \_ R.L. Jhanwar
"
Jud'a,rmag€_ _ \ Judge i
i

Ghasiya Ram and Anr. v. Ghosi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghasiya Ram and Anr. v. Ghosi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanmoti Bai and Others Vs Rajesh Miri and Another

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sahida Begum and Others

Bhupendra Kumar Dahariya Vs Rakhi

Smt.Shyama Bai Marko and Others Vs Kanhaiya and Others

Sanat Kumar Sonkar and Anr. Vs Moti Lal Sonkar and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Gupta and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Gupta and Others