IN THE HIGH COURT OF J^DICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISC.APPEAL N0. /<3^-^ /2003 APPELLANTS 'n' 1. (Claimants) Smt. Kumari Bai,W/o. Late Churaman Lal, aged 25 years, 2. . Rikhi Rarn (Minor),.S/o. Late Chumman LaJ., age03years>K->-i.-i--^^ A-ptXt.tvE<'ci>- MB.IL 3, Tosh Kumar (Minor), S/o. Late Chumman Lal, age 1 Va years -•^tvt-wu-i'^ /irpT^T(_ihn>- ^«.».^ ^4. Swaroop Ram, S/o. Brijlal Yadav, Age 48 years. 5. Satti Bai, W/o. Swaroop Ram, Age 42 years. ''•All the appellants No. 1 and 5 are R/o. Village - Khanarpuri, Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS^-1. ^ ^^•^1'^ 2. ^p?l" ^' ^ .^^? ^^" ^3.^ Lalit Chandrakar, S/o. Baldao Chandral<.ar,Age 22 years, R/o. Village Kanharpuri, Tehsil & District-Mahasamund (C.G.) Bharatlal Chandrakar, S/o. Harilal Chandralsar, Age - 32 years, R/o. Purani Basti, Mahasamund, District - Mahasajnund (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited. Madina Building, Jailroad, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/SEC. 173 OFM.V.ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED: 29/SEP./2003 PASSED IN CLAIM CASE N0. 66/2003. ';.\ ! .'i 1 ...^Li-ii-ju. ^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATT5SGARH AT BtLASPUR D B: Hon'ble Shri Justice i.M. Qucklusi Hon'bSe Shri -Jystice Prashffl-it Kumar Mishra. Miscellaneous No. 1053 ('2083 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Versus Smt. Kumari Bai anci others. Latit Chandrakar and othere. Shri J.A. Lohsni, counsei for $fte appeHants. Shri Anand Gupta, counse! for respondent No, 3. RAL ORDER (20.09.2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heard. (2) This appeal has been fited against the impugned award of Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal dated 29-09-M03 passed in Ciaim Petjtion No. 66/2002 dismissing the claim petition. (3) The brief facts as narrated in the ciaim petition are that the deceased namely Chumman Yadsv sitting in the back of the motorcycte bearing Registratlon No. MP 23 M 6728, driven by the respondent No. 1 met with an awident due to it the deceased died for whtoh the claimarits fiied the daim petition before the M<A6r Acasident Ciaims Tribunai, which framed five issues. The first was whether non-appiicant No. 1 cwnmitted ascident withthe motorc^le No. MP 23 M 6728 uwned by non-applicant No. 2 on 11-Q3-2(X}2 at behind Khallari Tempie, Poliw Station - Mahasamund. Dueto rash and negligent driving of the motoro^te, the deceased clied. Tflie a.~ l._.L.x other are not necessary to discuss -as the fiist issue was answer&d in n^ative by the M.A.C.T. concemed. (4) 'We h-ave perused the recorcis as welt as the post mortem report. The accident had taken piace on 11-03-2302 in the evenin^ between 03.00 p.m. to 04.00 p.m. The deceased died on the sa.me date in the evening and the post mortem was done on 12-03-2002. it Is not the case that the motoreycle met with accident and ran awav. The deceased w-as sitting behind as pillion rider and after accident the mototcycte remained there. Deceased was taken to the Hospna1 and it cannot be said that nobody had se^i the accident, sn faet there are witnesses of the same. The ctaimants witness NQ. 2 nameiy Lachchhuram gave the staternent that he had seen ttiat the deceased Chumman Yadav was lying and had feii down and had got jnjurtes on head and as wel! as on temporal area. Though, this witness had s-aid that he had not seen the accident with his own eyes, but subsequent to accident he had seen tying dweased Chumrnan and his injuries. The cterk of Advocate, Quadari namely Gendram Nirala, ctaimants-witness No. 3 hs^ given numberofthe mutureycte and had seen the accident, but he was disbelieved that he had that he had not (cnown that who was driving the said vehicte ana' who was sittEng behind and person who was driving his vehtete. He hau toidabout the accident and by his statement he had seen the number of motore^te which met the accident. ."'c81^. ! ?, ';B^esi%; | -3. ^ (5) The iearned M.A..C.T, concemed has not menttoned anything about the techntoat inspectton of the motorcycle and has disbetieved the testimony of the witnesses on the technteal grounds. (6) Therefore, we think it proper to remit the matter for reconsiueration at the end ofthe M.A.C.T. concemed. (7) In view of the auove, we set-aside the impugneci award and rernit the matter back to the M.A.C.T, concemed whteh shall restore the ciaim petitiop of the claimants to its original number and shalt take decision afresh after providing opportunity to the parties concemed to adduce further evidence, if any, and shalS take the uecssion independently without being influenced by eariier dectsion wiiich has been set-aside, <8) No order as to cost. (9) The lower Court record shait be sent baek without further Sdl- I.M.Quddusl judge Prashant Kun.ar Mishra Judge