IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l M.A. N0. ^6^ /2006 B,., Bs APPELLANTS s'Cli^-^T!/)t^ 1. ^ ^ 4. RESPONDENTS 2. 3.,- Smt. Anita Singh Wd/o. Manoranjan Singh Aged about 29 years Caste- Gond Ku. Deepa Singh D/o. Manoranjan Singh Aged about 15 years Caste Gond, Occupation student Rajeev-Kumar S/o. Late Manoranjan Singh Aged about 13 years Occupation- student Caste- Gond- Sanjay Kumar S/o. Late Manoranjan Singh Aged 11 years, Caste-Gond Occupation Student Ku. Sangeeta Singh D/o. Late Manoranjan Singh Aged 9 years, Caste-Gond, occup'ation Student No.2 & 5 minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Anita Singh All resident of Village Lanchi, P.S. and Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS JJnited India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Vishnu Pratap Agrawal at present R/o. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Mithlesh Singh, S/o.Indradev Singh R/o.C/O.Vishnu Pratap Agrawal Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, Dist. Sarguja MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF •LHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^•^^k %""%>. f^^ \ SSSS&Sk H16H COWT W WWATnSG/SW AJ BILASPUR MVISION BENCH: HON'BUE MR. I.M.QUD&USI d HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE A6AKMAL. JJ. (9 Aooellants Respondents IA A. No.468/2006 Smt. Anita Singh A <rthers Vs United India Insur<mce Co. Ltd. A others Present: Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate for the appellonts. Mr. D. 6upta, Advocafe for respondent No.3. ORbERfOraB ttll (30" Nowmber. 2010) Chiddusi. J: 1. Henrd learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The appellants/claimonts, who ore unfortunote widow and minor children of deceased-Manoranjan Singh, have filed this miscellaneous oppeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Acf) ngainst the impugned award dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (C6) (for brevity the tribunal*) in Claim Case No.143/2004 dismissing the claim petition ofthe claimants, 3, Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants have filed a cloim petition under Section 166 of the Act clairoing compensort'ion of Rs.5,73,000/- for the deoth of decensed Manoranjan Singh in the motor accident which took place on 16.6.2004 ot nbout 7.30 p.m., when the bicycle of the deceosed wos dashed by the offending vehicle on occount of rash and negligent driving of the soid vehicle by its driver. Theclnimants hove claimed coropensation on the.ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was only earning member in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income, 4. Non-applicnrtts No.l 42 have filed their written statement before the tribunnl betow and denied theclaim ofthe clnimant on various younds. 5. On the pleadings of the part-ies, the tribunal has frnmed os mony as four issues and after hearing the p<rtjes in the matter dismissed the claini 12 •w_ ,,cs^-- ^y '"^Sss^" ^p petition ofthe claimants mainlyon the 9round that the claimants have fqiled to prove that the accident has taken plnce due to rash and negligent driving ofnon-applicant No-3-driver ofthe offending vehicle. 6, We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records pf^ the tribunal as olso the findings given inthe impugned award. 7. From perusal of the records it revealed that the tribunul has framed the issues and in respect to Issue No.l 'i.e. foctum of accident, the tribunal hos given the finding in negative nter alia on the ground that the driver is not known. However, from perusal ofPara-4 of the writtenstntement filed on beholf of the non-applicant No,2-o»'ner of tTie offending vehicte, namely Vishnu Prnfap Agarwal, it is evident that he has admitted the fact of accident as olso the fact that non-applicont No.3-ttithilesh Singh w<is driving the offending vehicle, however. he denied thcrt' due to negljgence on the part of the driver, the occident has occurred, Thus, in view of the specific odmission by the owner of the vehicle regarding fflffit of accident by non- applicant Nk>.3, it cannot be said that it is not known as to who was driving the offending vehicle. Thus, without considering the written statement filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, determinafion ofthe fqct in issue by the tribunal was not proper. Therefore. »ewe of the opinion thtrt' the mctter requires reconsiderotion ut' the end of the tribunal. 8. For the reasons foregoing, we allow this appeol in port-, set nside the avwd dated 20.01.2006 possed in Claim Case No. 148/2004 by the learned l't .Additional AAotor lAccident Ctoims Tribunnl, Surajpur and remit the matter bock to the tribunnl for decision afresh. The c(aim petition shall be restwed to its originnt number and shall be decided ofresh by the tribunal after offording opportunity to the portiesto odduce additional evidence, if any, in suppbrt/of their respective coses. It is mode ctear thot whatever findings have been given in the impugned aword sholl not be taken into consideration and without being influenced by those findings, the decision shall be taken by the tribunal independently. The Registry is direct-ed to trnnsmit the records of the tribunal concerned without •furtber detgy. ip^/^-^ Sd/- i.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K-Agarwai Judge