IN THE HON'BLE HICTI^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BUsc.^pBeal {C} No. l^t^ /2008 APPELLANTS l-\ ^•'^^ 1) 2) jiVisson Hsnd Smt. Pamia Bai W/o Dhannulal Sahu aged about 45 years, ^.^::',1^^1 .•^>1 w?^"'" »»®&- 'fL Ltp' e>fc^' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1) f- 2) Dhannulal Sahu S/o Shri Bhukhau Sahu, aged about 56 years, Both R/o Village Sundara, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (CLAIMANTS) Sukhdeo Singh S/o Shri Ramprakash, aged about 40 years, R/o T.P. Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) (OWNER) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Malviya Nagar, Dur^ Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 1INSURER) MEMORANDUM OF APPEALUNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 ^ SJ^fc. "l'*t* s~ Aark; T *.* .?^* !*^?M tj?? * (»iK.,.i.,m. Vs Smt. Parnia Bai & another Sukhdeo Singh & another AAr. 5.5. Rajput, Advocate for- the appellants. Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.l. None fo" the respondent No.2. (13th Deeamber, 2011) ^J; Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appeliants against the award dnted 03.05.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short the Ciaims Tribunai') in Claim Co.se No.111/06. 3. Brief facts of 1+ie case are that the claimants, who are parents of deceased U'mesh Kumar, have filed a ciqim application before the Claims Tribuna! seeking compensation to the tune of fts.13,00,000/- for the deaith of said Umesh Kumar in a motor accident whjch took place on 27.11.2003 at 4.00 p.m., when ^T of the deceased was dashed by the trailer truck bearing registration number Ci507-ZC-0683, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The ciaimants claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole earnina member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered ioss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the Darties in the matter dismissed the ctaim on the around that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicte in the accident. 5. We have heard learned counsei for the parties and perused l+ie impugned award as also records of the Claims Tr'ibunai. _..-:-'' •i', n.^- <? ^ 6. On perusal of the records, it appears that whiie dismissing the claim application, the Claims Tr-ibunal has reiied upon rhe receipts issued by the local bodies concerned and ther-efore, we propose to examine the same. 7. Receipt (Ex.D-1), which was issued by Nasik AAahanagar Paiika by Book No.3039, bears two dates i.e. 14.11.2003 & 22.11.2003. fteceipt (Ex.D-2) was issued by I.R.B. Pvt. Ltd. for Thane Bhiwandi Bypass from Nasik to AAumbai and the same does not bear the vehicle number, however, the date has been mentioned as 23.11.2003 at 23.35.44 hrs and descriotion of yehicie has been mentioned ns bus/truck. Receipt (Ex.E)-3) is entrcnce / parking fee issued by the Mumbai Metpopolitan Region Iron S, Steel Markst Committee and in this receipt 1+ie date has been mentioned as 26.11.2003 not from 1+ie ink which was used for filling this receipt but by another ink. Receipt dated 28.11.2003 (Ex.D-4) was issued by the deaier of Bharat Petroleum located at Nashik, but this receipt also does not show the presence of vehicie in question at that place on the date of accident. Receipt (Ex.D-5) issusd by Nasik Mahanagar Paiika is of 29.11.2003 and its book number is 3407. Receipt (Ex.D-6) was issued by Akoia Mahanagar- Palika (Jakat Vibhaag) on 30.11.2003 at 14.12 hrs for Chcndarpur. Though in •riiis receipt there is mention of the registration number of the vehicle but the same was issued much after the date of accident. Ex.D-7 & Ex.i are the receipts of coilection of toH tax and in this also the vehicte number has been mentioned as C607-0683, but 1tie same have no retevancy wi1+i the date of accident. 8. From the aboye, it is evident that there is nothing in these receipts based on which it can be inferred that at the time of accident the vehicte in question was not present at the place of accident rather it was present at some other place. However, the Claims Tribunal without verifying the receipts produced by the owner of the vehicte in question has reached to the conclusion That the vehicle-in-question was not involved in the accident in question. Whereas. before reaching to any conciusion, the Ciaims 'r-ibunal should have summoned the officer/employee of 1-he concerned authori'ty issuing the said receipts aiong with onainai records and oniy f ^ after verification of the said receipts, the Claims Tribunal shouid have decided the claim petjtion. 9. From a glance of the police record aiso it appears that the poiice have conducted the investigation in a routine manner. The police could have conducted a thorough enquiry by taking helpof the Regional Transport Office concerned as aiso by visiting the piaces where the vehicle-in- question was atlegediy claimed to be present. In iight of the statement of owner of the yehicie-in-question that he owned six vehicies, the police should have enquired the fact as to whether the receipts produced by the owner of 1+ie vehicle in question were issued in respect of tiie said vehicle or not. 10.In view of above, we are of the opinion that dismissai of the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal is not proper. 11. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunai to decide the claim petition afresh as early as possible, pveferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shail be entitied to amend the pieadings or file documents or verify -t+ie documents atready filed. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on ^2. The Registry is dlrected to tro.nsmit the record of the Claims Tribunal without further delay. 12-Certified copy as per ruies. SdA LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Judge