^^•Qn Bsnch !N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR M.A.tONO. ^S'^ /2Q11 APPELLANTS Claimants r ^^.^ ^w' ^y/^) ^y ~.y RESPONDENTS Driver Owner 1. Smt. Rekha Bai wd/o Late Ramesh Nai aged about 30 years 2. Ku. Priyanka d/o Late Ramesh Nai aged about 13 years (Minor) 3. Prithvi Kumar s/o Late Ramesh Nai aged about 10 years (Minor) Appellant No.2 and 3 both minors through natural' guardian mother Smt. Rekha Bai wd/o Late Ramesh Nai All residents of village Nevasa Thana- Gaurella Dist Bilaspur C.G. Versus 1. Kamal @ Gappu Sahu S/o Panna Lal aged about 47 years 2. Ku. Meera Sahu d/o Panna Lal Sahu aged about 23 years, Both residents of village- rest house road, Gaurella Dist Bilaspur C.G. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 T< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.SVS.QUDDUS! & HON'BLE iVIR.GULAM SViiNHAJUDDiN, JJ Ai3j?e!!ants Respondents M.A.rdNo.752/2011 Smt. Rekha Bai & others Vs Kamal @ Gappu Sahu & another Present: Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appeilants. Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate forthe respondents. ORDER(Oral) (29tnSeptember,2011) LIVI. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal against the award dated 21.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (for sho?1: ithe Claims Tribunai1) in Claim CaseNo.34/10. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants have filed a clalm application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,30,000/- for the death of deceased Ramesh Kumar Nai, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 09.07.2008, when the bicycie of the deceased, on which he was returning to his house, was dashed by the vehide bearing registration number CG10-2519, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver. The ctaimants, who are widow & children of the deceased, have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the soie earning member in the famiiy, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunai vide impugned award dismissed claim application of the appellants herein on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the fact of accident. 5. We have heard learned counse! for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunai. 6. In this case, the non-applicants/respondents herein did not appear before the Claims Tribunai and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the ciaim application of the claimants on the ground that though the claimants had produced the documents reiated to criminal case but eij^ Aq peonpojd pu eje sesseuiiMoAe eqi ^j sjei|ynj 'p^oy ejpued 'ssejQ I, e^lsiSeEAj jeioipnr peujesi p ynoo 941 ui Suipued (sjeqp ^ nL|B9 nddsQ @ |€ius>| 'SA ^WS) ZO/Z99'°N ^seo jeujujuo p pjooej 901jod 941 peuoiuujns - 9Aeq pinoo |eunqui SLUIBIO ©41'peijqjqxs iou ©JBeseo leuiiuuo p siu©Lunoop eijl jij pue pjooej uo 4^4 Suuq 0} Ajinbue ue pnpuoo 01 |eunqui siuieio eqi p Ainp uepunoq eq^ s^^ l! pu^ I!HS IjAp e SGM eiues 941 ^ se uojieoiidde luiejo eqi p9^94 eAeii iou pjnoi|s |eunqui SLUIS|O 04^ teAoqe 041 p M©IAu[ 's \/jo!^uediuoa ^nf, euft SSQSSB ueo ^ ^e^ osk uo^fsod }OQMOO pue en^ a^ ufe^eosB 0} Qfoj QA^OB UBQ^B^ o^o/eaQq^ pfnoifs {eunquj^ eifj^ '.uo^Bsuecftuoo ^nf, eqf BufUiiujefep ^of .ijuiefo eq^ o^ui Ajinbue ue pfoij, o^ pejifnbej s! oijM qytj^ fo JQ^QQS pue jQjofdxe eAifoe ue se yiq 'yns fiAp eui se ejfddin {BJfneu e s@ uo^ounj. ^ou saop feunquji QLJ} feqf ^uopfAe ^ Q>seiu foy Q^ yo 69^ pas ggi. SUOff39S '^fW^lp ^©l/BtO/SCffO fUQpo ei^ je/noj^Bcf ui 'toa^fQ jieqf pu& SQuniui Q^ 0} pjieBQjt ui pQjapua^ si QOUQPIAQ leoipaw UQ^M jo^efOQds ^UQ{IS e Qq foupfnoLfSfeunquj^--,, ys^i pieq seq §923^35 (gi.) QtOZ ui peyodsj jsqioue % jetun>i Aefv -SA jeuin>|fey p j, |,-BJBd ui os|e ynoo euiejdng ©iq,uo|-|941 '8 "p^ eijl uj^jeose 01 Ajiinbue pnpuoo ||^qs jeunqui SLUICIO 041 ieqi pepiAojd ueeq seq 11 osje ^gei. 'se|ny eiojqeA JOIO|A| eqi p QZ.Z, efny ui 'sjqi sepjssg "O'd'-iO ®4l10 |AXX -19^640 pue 951, uoipes p sssodjnd eqi ||B joi ynoo |IA!O e eq 01 peiueep eq ||eL|s i^unqui suuieio 041 pue pequosejd eq Aeiu se sesodjnd jsqio qons JQJ pue spefqo jeueieuu pue siueunoop p uoipnpojd pue A.i9AOOssp eqi 6uf||ediuoo p pue sessouiiM eqi p eouepuene 6urojoj.ua p pue LJ^BO uo eouepiAQ 6uj>|ei p esodjnd eq^ .10^ ynoo IJAJO e p sjeMod eqi ||e eAeq lieqs leunqui SUUJBJO ©41•}y S)|UIL<I 11 se ejnpsoojd /jBLUiuns qons MO||O^ '^BMeq siqi ui epeiu eq ABLU ye^ S9|m Aue 01 pefqns •ABLU ieunqui SIUIBJO ©qt'89 L uoipe9 jepun Aijnbui Aue Suipjoq ui ys^ sAes pue |eunqui suuieio ©qip sjeMod pue ejnpeoojd sequosejd 9951, 'PV 941 P 691^ uoipes 'Luiejo 9^ oiui Ajinbui ue pioq KSI|S [eunqui siuiejo ei}} (uoflesuediuoo jo^ uo^eosidde p idieoej ub ^{^ sepiAojd (.8861 'PV ^Ml, ^IOMS -10^) 9951, 'ioy seiojqeA .IOIO|A| equo 991. uojpes 'L •leunqui siuiejo ei|i ejopq peujiuexe iou ejeM Aeij} inq ^uepiooe ei|^ p sesseuijA^eAe se UMoqs ueeq 9Aeq ejoqiey |e^9eq9 jjqs p uos <9joyiey pesejduuey pue ejeqseiei/y UL(S p uos 'jeqa SQqe|/\| A|9iiieu suosjed of^ qoiqM ui pue odl ©41p v^OG uoipss jepun ©iqeqsiundeousyo sqi jo^ 60/Z9Z"ON eiutjo jepun pe6po| yodej uoiieiujoju! isjy jfi siseq 9i|^ uo eos|od 041 Aq pojy SCM "O'd'-iO P SZl^ uoi.P®S-ispun leeqs eSjeqo e ARuenbesqns 'jeAQMOH 'ejoAoiq eyi iuo4 UMOp ue||€j| peq peseeoep eqi ieqi peuoiiueiu SCM 41 lpeujeouoo uoi^9 9o'|0d ©MlP eBjeqo-ui jeoiyo 9t|i 01 jsoy^o |eoip9|/\| eqi p j©ns|pue euj8u^Aei|oued ^qs>jeu (uoj}eiuiiuj BJOIU 041 us ys^ si pessjiusjp SCM uoseoiidde LU!B|O 9L|i qoiqM uo punojB jeqiouv 'tueqi Aq petiqiqxe iou 9J9M eiues eq^ ciaimants, the Ctaims Tribunal could have summoned them suo moiu during the conduct of enquiry to ascertain the truth. However, the same has not been done in the instant case and therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal as the Claims Tribunai has not followed the above provisions while deciding the claim application. 10.1n the result, the appeai is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further eviderice, if any, or to cali/ recall the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file or verify the documents already filed. If the non-applicants, who were proceeded ex-parte, want to contest the claim, they shali be allowed to participate in the proceedings. The Claims Tribunal shall try to decide the claim application afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance ofthe parties. 11.The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunai concerned on 17 November. 2011. The Registry is djrected to transmit record ofthe Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^