High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 CHH CK 0204

Shanti Agrawal vs Sushila Sahu And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 12 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 997 Of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 284 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Present is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 11/07/2012 passed by the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.96/2010.

2.

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

3.

The counsel for the appellant submits that, the rejection of the claim application is bad in law, as there is sufficient material produced before the

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

4.

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 expenses incurred in the treatment.

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.