^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A.(C)No. ?>^n of 2011 w^ R^i^^S ly^g ^'ilKS APPELLANTS/ ^eiaimants ^ s%^ 4, \r / ^A / .//A ^\. ^'.^ ",// <r.J •^ ^ ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1 ^ Smt. Kaushalya'Gawde, aged about 33 years, W/o Late Nandu Gawde, Ku. Roshni Gawde, aged about OGyears, D/o Late Nandu Gawde, Ku. Hemal Gawde, aged about 04 years, D/o Late Nandu Gawde, Pushkar Gawde', aged about 21/^ years,S/o Late Nandu Gawde, Appellants no. 2 to 4 are minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Kaushalya Gawde, W/o Late Nandu Gawde, All R/o Village^'Harthinga, Police Station- Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) at present Rampur Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District- Dhamtari (C.G.) Chunnuram Nishad, aged about 30 years, S/o Brijlal Nishad, R/o Village-Rauna, Post- Kandul, Police Station-Arjunda, Tahsil- Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) Hemant Kumar Sahu, aged about 32 years, S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai-3, Police Station-Bhilai-3, Tahsil- Patan, District-Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Principat Office, New India Insurance Building, 87 M.G.Road, Fort Mumbai 400001, Branch Manager, Branch Office, Thakkar Chamber, Power House, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : AWARDAMOUNT : VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL : Rs.19,69,104/- Rs.Nil' Rs. 19,69,104/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/^173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 fe i •..^Si2^ ll^^ ^y ^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR &IVIS!ONBiNCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUtSDUSI & HGN'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUDOIN. JJ Appellants Re^pondents M.A. (C1 No. 360/2011 Smt< Kaushatya ^awde <& others Vs Chunnuram Nishdd A others Present: Mr. fiautam Khetrapal, Advocate for 1+ie cppellants- None for the responcients No-1 A 2 though served. Mr. S. Verma, Advocate qyears on behalf of Mr. &• ©upta,Adv. for •tiie ^nBSpondent No.3. OR R (Oran (8thJuiy,20li) I.M. Ouddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. This c^peal has been filed by the ctaimants/cappellants a9ainst the award dated 13.01.2011 passed by the tearned Additional Motor Accictertt Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Balod, District Durg (for short l+ie Claims Tribunal') in Ctaim Case No.83/10 dismissin9 the ctaim cpplication of the claimants. 3. Facts of the case, ir» brief, are 1+iat on 11.2.2010 Nandu ©awde(since deceased) was trayeling in the motorcycle bearing registration number C6Q7- LF-4705 as pilUon rider and going to Dhamtari from Balod. Respondent No.l was driving Itte said motorcycle. On the way, due to r<ish and ne9ligent driving by respondent hto.l, said Noindu ©awdefell down from the motorcycte and sustdned grievous injuries, He was taken to the MAAI Hospital/ Raipur for treatment where he died on 22.02.2010 white under9oin9 treatment. Report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station 6urur. The claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased, have filed claim qiplication seeking compensation to the tune of fts.19,69,104/- on the 9round that they v&ere dependent on the deceased, who was sole eommg member in thc family, and due to his death they havesuffered loss of income. vt 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismis^d the claim of the claimants ori the ground that the claimants faiied to prove 1+ie fact of the acddent 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also peru^d the records of the Cbims Tribunal. 6. The Claims Tribunal has decided Isaie No.t against the claimonts holding 1+iat it was not proved that the deceased wafi sitt-ing on -riie motorcycte. In this regard we have perused the written statements filed by the owner, driver of the motorcycle and insurcince compony and found Itiat all of them hav^ admitt-ed in their written statement 1iiat the desceased was tr-aveling in the motorcycle as pjllion rider. However, accordhi9 to the inairance conyaa?iy, the deceased himself was at fault and therefore it cannot be aaid that the driver was driving the motorcycle in rosh and negli^nt manner reailting in accident in question. Therefore, finding of Ihe Claims Tribynal on Issu®No.l that it is not proved that the deceased was sittin9 over Ifie vehicle as pillioR rider is totally perverse and liabte to be set aside, 7. Since no other issue hos been decided by th®Claims Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the matter requlres reconsideration at the end of Ckxims Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal, set aside thc impugned award auid remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for takina decision afresh in light pf the observations made in 1+iis order. Needless to mention that tiw Ctaims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadin^ or to file documents or verify the documents already filed. The parties are directed to appear before 1+ie Claims Tribunal concerned on IIth Auaust. 2011. 9. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunai concerned without further deloy. No order as to costs. 10; Cerl-ified copy os per rules. Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge