HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAH-l AT BI U .A.8062002 APPELLANTS 1 Gnlab Chand Sam s/o Ghasx Ram , Som, aged about 53 years V‘ ‘ « 2 r Smt Shanulata Som, *wxfe ‘ao i Gmab Chand Som, agcd: about 3 yeam . ;‘« ‘ f , 9 Both res1dents of Jorapar ‘ Sarkanda, Tah and Dlsinc ( ‘ 'Bllaspur, M P (Now CG) Versus RESPONDENW ~ 1* Knshna Kumar Samf s/o Medlm “ h Shawn Samf By Caste Som, resnient of Wand No 12 Bazarpara, " Janjgir, Distridt I i l ‘ ‘ § ’ ‘ Janjg‘r Champa MP (Now CG)V~\ ‘. 7 2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Though Divisional ’ Manager; 68 Indra Commemial Complex; ‘* Tmnsport Nagar, Korba MP (Now CG) Mis’c. Appealwu/s 1'73 of the Motor Vehicle: Act I A entance: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the appeuants. Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for mspondent No; 2. None for mspondent No. 1. ORDER (10.01.20113” ; The appellants have $ed fhm appeal agamst the onier dated ”'7 7 2001 passed by the 6‘11 Addltlonal Motor Acc1dents Clmms Tnbunal B11aspur m CT No 29/2001 whereby the appkcatlon under Sectmn 140 of the Motor Vehlcles Act med by the clammnts R I t " ‘ a, t M A for interim compensation has been dismissed by ty Cams“: ribunal. 2; The bnef facts are that the clalmants axe patents of the ; deceased They med a clalm peuhon before the Claxms 'I‘nbun under Sectlon 140 of the Motor Vehlcles Act on account ofdeath of thelr son Navm Kumar Som 1n the motor acmdent On 27 9 1999 Navm Kumax Sam (smoe deceased) was retummg to h1s home o h1s motorcycle, beanng reg1strat10n No MP 26/ KC 7272. He wae Raising thmugh The canal road all of a sudden, his mommycl‘ a & n ee led and he lost conhol and fell down m the water canal aloa the motorcycle and drowned 1n the water resulting mto hm deat Next day, body. of Navm Kumar Som was found doatmg m the canal « 3, amed counsel for the appellants submlts that deceased >-— i N avm Kumar Som d1ed m the motor acoldent wlnle he was n=turmng to hls home on h1s motorcycle He fell down along w1th' hls motorcycle m the canal He submxts that the motorcycle was. msured w1th respondent No 2- Umted Imha Insurance Company’s muted therefore, the Insurance Company 1s hable for payment of ‘ i mpensauon He prays for setting as1de the order of the learnedfla s lmms ’l‘nbunal On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No 2 - Ibmted Ind1a insurance Company Ltd supported the order an stubmns that the claimants have taded to prove that the deceased died in the motor accident. x After perusal of record and the order of the Clanns ’I‘nbunal 1;t appears that the order has been passed only on the bas1s of j docnments pmduced before 1t which 1s not a dnal order After K 1akmg evrdence, ’I‘nbunal has not recorded the hndmg that l I l h li T s g ‘ ’ h. r w Lag d Whether the death of Navm Kumar Som had occurred m the meter e»; acc1dent or not. The Tnbunal ought to have consniered the ‘ ewdencc adduced by the pamcs before 1t and thereafter shouidrrmww have passed a detmled Older Therefore, the order passed by 1th Chums Tnbunal ls hable to be set amde and It would a propnate to pass the onier ahesh by the 'I‘nbunal aher takin vFdence of the parh'es. 6.' - Cons1denng the facts and cn‘cnmsfances of the case, order dAfmd 27 7 2001 passed by the Clams Tnbnna ' CW29/2001 1s hemby set asnie The Claims ’l‘Imunal 1s; duected to record the ev1dence after pmwdlng opportunity of:- hearing to the parhes and demde the case hnally on us own merits :1 7.§ W1th the aforesaxd duecuons the appeal 1s hnally (imposed » of Reconi of the Cla-Lms 'I‘nbnnal be sent back for demdmg the case on ments \ x 8. No order osts as to c. - e~ b g. e a. 2‘ ‘ f ' .