Dismissed

Smt. Shanti Agrawal v. Sushila Sahu and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2018MAC/997/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant lacked sufficient material to prove the accident, injury, treatment, and disability. Consequently, the court held that the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and the appeal failed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was rejected and the impugned award of the Tribunal was upheld.

Smt. Shanti Agrawal Vs Sushila Sahu and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 997 of 2012

¶5

Smt.Shanti Agrawal W/o Late Pawan Agrawal, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No.5, Nayapara, Mahasamund, P.S.Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant).

¶6

---Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sushila Sahu W/o Late Rajkumar Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Ram Rahim Nagar, Mahasamund, P.S.Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver and Owner).

¶9

Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, Raipur, Manager, Divisional Office No.1, Madina, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer).

¶10

---Respondents

¶11

For appellant	:	Shri Shikhar Sharma on behalf of Shri
		Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.
For respondents No. 2	:	Shri K.Rohan on behalf of Shri Amrito
		Das, Advocate.

¶12

Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

12/02/2018

¶15

Present is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the

¶16

Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 11/07/2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Motor

¶17

Accident Claim Case No.96/2010.

¶18

Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal has rejected the claim application of the appellant.

¶19

The counsel for the appellant submits that, the rejection of the claim

¶20

application is bad in law, as there is sufficient material produced before the

¶21

¶22

Tribunal to establish the accident, the resultant injury, the treatment and the disability suffered by the appellant.

¶23

Perusal of record would show that, except for the statement of the claimant, there is no sufficient material or evidence produced by the claimant to establish the accident, the disability part if any, the treatment and the

¶24

expenses incurred in the treatment.

¶25

Further, it also appears from perusal of record that, neither the bills of the hospital or the clinic have been proved by any witness from the hospital nor was the treating doctor examined to prove that the claimant suffered from any permanent disability.

¶26

In the absence of any such evidence on part of the claimant, the finding of the Tribunal thus cannot be found fault with.

¶27

Even in the present appeal also, the appellant have not been able to produce any sufficient additional material with which the case of the claimant could have been substantiated.

¶28

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned award.

¶29

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.

¶30

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy)

¶31

Sumit

¶32

JUDGE

Smt. Shanti Agrawal v. Sushila Sahu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Agrawal v. Sushila Sahu and Anr.

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

Laxmichand Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Prasad Thawait Vs Cg. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board and Ors.

Ishwar Das Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Punuram Vs Sitabai and Ors.

Smt.lalmati Jaiswal And Ors. Vs Smt.jamuna Devi Shukal And Anr.

Punuram Vs Revti Bai and Ors.