Dismissed

Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade v. Sahjida Khatun

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2014MAC/1228/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged the award of Rs. 3,80,000 compensation to the Respondent for the death of the latter's son, attributed to an accident involving the Appellant's tractor. Appearing on I.A. for condonation of delay, the Court found the appellant provided no substantial material to overturn the Tribunal's reasoned award and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the award of the Tribunal remained intact; no order as to costs.

Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade Vs Sahjida… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHAATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) (M.A.(C.) No. .........J.^AA.... /2014)

¶4

APPELLANT Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade NON-APPLICANT S/o Kariman Rajwade; aged about - 32 year; R/o Village^- Saritikra; Police Station & Tahsil - Darima; District (Revenue & Civil) - Surguja (C.G.)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENT Sahjida Khatun W/o Ramjan ,^^^swy APPLICANT Ali; aged about - 43 year; R/o Village Khala; Police Station & Tahsil - Darima; District (Revenue & Civil) - Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

•^se-m^—^y-^^rw^

^¥'IJ^NFi1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshyl

¶12

M. A.(Cl No. 1228 of 2014

¶13

Appellant Saheshwar ( Chintu Rajwade

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

Respondent Sahjida Khatun

¶16

Present: Shri Anand Keshwarwani, counsel for the appellant.

¶17

O RAL Q_ (04.12.2014) \ y Heard on I.A. in application fc^^^:onjation

¶18

"V of delay in filing of th< 2. On due considerl mfficient cause has been; shown in not filing the appj stipulated period, I.A. No.^1 is 1ft ,1 allowed and the delM^^ tt^^/in filing the appeal is hereby ^^cT^TO^ condoned. 3. Heard on admission. i . :

¶19

By way of the instant appeal;the appellant has challeriged the award dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja: District Ambikapur, in Claim Caseno. 82/2010. ' , •:

¶20

The instant appeal is preferred by the owner, challenging the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed Surguja, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 3,80,000 as compensation to the respondent'No;|16n account of death of the son of respondent No. 1 i.e.deceiased

¶21

(v' o

¶22

¶23

: .1 ;: ;t!^ -

¶24

Salman.

¶25

The admitted fact of the case is that on 20.03.200a'wtiile the deceased Salman was working under the preserit; apipellanl: in his tractor and while he wasi loading crusher stonei^^ tractor at the crusher stone plant at Topakona in village Khala, the tractor met with an accident as it had turned turtle;a^|l fell upon the deceased resulting in his death. Against the said cleath o'f the decease ;nt No. 1 / claimants ;; who was t "bf the deceased; ha d ^l im applica.tion an amount ofR^4y^40,000/- towards'c^^B^isatio.n. That after the: complete and tli^r evidence 1 were recorded by vide its dated judgment 31.01.2014 passed ilding that the 'presenfc appellant vvho is the owner of Jtfiliable to pay com.pensation of n^'ffijiRciiF""" " [""J --"-r--"-""";-i^-i:: W"~WWvrAlT ; " Rs..3,08,000/to interest @,Y6%:iper ^Tcq^c? vPT^ annum from the date of filing ofapplication. ' •/Y.^'''^ 8. It is this award dated 31.01.2014 which is put^to challenge by the appellant by way of the insfant appeal under SGctiorflil?® ofMotorVehicleAct 1988. -;; ; . !;'

¶26

According to the counsel the appellant th^ TribLinal has not appreciated. the evidence so far fas properly engagement of the deceased by: the appellant. ItiWas^al^o contended that the present appellant did not engage!:ti'ie deceased to work under him neither the appellant engagGd;ithe deceased to work on his tractor'iknd lastly the couh.sel f^^Lth^

¶27

¶28

appellant submits that the afccident occurred ^!eca|^sei^^^ negligence on the part of the decea|sed himself as hejKa<aiMims^lf without the knowledge, consent arltd permission of th^Ja^^^^t taking the vehicle on the date ofaccident. , i|: ^ ^^^^^^ 10. However, on perusal of the records, parficularly'the evidence which have come before the Court below as is evident from the paragraph -11 of the award of the Tribunal:it clearly reflects that No.2 Ravindra. .RajWade,

¶29

before hisldepo,sitlon Ifice more than mWonth's the dece LS worfcin?g A. ;^ ider him and furtl it time instruct HI^SinpIoyee^ to operate the tractoi^ ;other facts so far as jaccident and the death of dec< ulting in the use of appellant's tractor is not dispt Mlt ipon • which the •' Tribunalihas ••• •;.. ^- '• \ - '•! fasten the liability of^S^^SiBIIbn upon the present appellant. ^TcST^cTyPT^ The vehicle was also not insured. ;.;,::; 11. On perusal of the records, on the basis of this-^Hbmission of the counsel for the appellant;their does not seem fo be^ajny good ground for challenging the award passed by the Trib:una:l which is otherwise a well reasoned award. Counsel for ;the appellant has not' been able to' point out an}^' substiantial material by which the findings of the Court below canlfoe s^id to be unreasonable nor can the awarded amount be saidii tO be exorbitant or excessive. In addition, from the evidence'iwhicR has come before the Court below i;and the findings :;wMcN;|h^vG

fe'

I
M
KS^'

-! (Vv

been given by the Court below, tMi^ Court is of the view,:^Ial|ti,is not a fit case for interfering with- the award passje||^|yj|^^ Tribunal and there is no good grduhd established b^;^|le|c;Q^ for appellant for calling any " interference. ' ^••.'5^^ !. . . .' • •' 1' • • • . • •."'". ;i';'.^f',. ^'';r i:,

¶34

Accordingly, the instant app;eal being devoid 6frrterits,itH;e I • : .' • same deserves to be and is dismissGd. No order as to co'3ts.^ ;i ; ^

<--

IU:

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶39

'<-iC^*:)ci vWct

Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade v. Sahjida Khatun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade v. Sahjida Khatun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assistant Engineer,Cseb Vs Nandlal Binjhwar

Sahodradevi and Ors. Vs Radhadevi and Anr.

Harendra Vs Narsingh and Others

Aghanu and Ors. Vs Putru and Ors.

Kumari Shreya Bose and Ors. Vs Dr.S.K.Lal and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Lekh Ram Dhruv And Ors.