Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44932 (CHH)

SHEKHAR CHANDRA YADAV v. SMT. KAMLA BAI PULASTA

MAC/2386/2024 · 2025-03-24

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:14112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2386 of 2024  Shekhar Chandra Yadav S/o Tonkadhar Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Alori, Kadamtoli Jashpur, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Kamla Bai Pulasta W/o Shivnath Pulasta Aged About 46 Years R/o Opposite Gas Dodam, Kartala, Tahsil - Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2. Shivnath Pulasta S/o Prahla Singh Pulasta Aged About 51 Years R/o Opposite Gas Dodam, Kartala, Tahsil - Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3. Jeniyus Lakda S/o Late Liyos Lakda Aged About 55 Years R/o Tetartoli Jashpur, Police Station - Jashpur, Tahsil And District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : None, even in the second round. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 03.2025 1. The matter is listed on default that copy of deposit slip of Rs. 25,000/- has not been filed, which is mandatory according to the provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. The appellant/owner of the vehicle has filed this appeal against an award dated 23.09.2024 passed in Claim Case No. 47/2024 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba, District Korba. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.24 17:13:31 +0530 2 3. The learned tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,05,264/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application. 4. The appellant/owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal, but the slip of deposit of Rs. 25,000/-, which is mandatory amount, has not been placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, whereas, he was granted sufficient opportunity; therefore, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant