fv IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fClNo. /Qg 9^/2009 APPELLANT ^' Tamin Bai Sahu ^% t.tf'; W/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad, aged aboutT^B| years, Resident RESPONDENTS ofVillage Bhothli, Post Office- Jagnathpur, Thana 85 Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ).. Dushyant Sharma, S/o Madan Lal Sharma, aged about 40 years, occupation of Driver of Mini Bus No.CGOS-B- 1865, Dhamtari Roadways, Resident of Marathapara Dhamtari, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil 85 District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver of the Vehicle Bearing Registered No.CG05-B-1865) ^—-~2. M/s. Dhamtari Roadways Dhamtari, Tahsil 85 District Dhamtari (C.G.) C/o Manager Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, aged about 50 years, Resident of Audhyogik Ward Dhamtari, Police Station 85 District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Bearing Registered No.CGOS-B-1865) ^F ^ ^^ ^T"^^^^^ ^•^FiEiS!!;:" ^'' ^—y The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Branch Office No.l, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang market G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) and Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, Power House Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurance by Vehicle Bearing Registered No.CGOS- B-1865) A^PEAIJ[TNDE1?SECTION1730FMQTORVEHICLEACT HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. QuddusLand Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Miscellaneous Appeal (C.)J4o.1^8Zof 2009 Tamin Bai Sahu t versus Respondents Dushyant Sharma and others Present: Shri J.S.P.Chandrasen and Shri C.R.Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri B.R.Singh, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri P.Dutta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Mjscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th September, 2010) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the impugned order dated 26-10-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod (henceforth 'the Clairhs Tribunal') in Ctaim Case No.99/2006 dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to adduce evidence. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellanVclaimant has filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') before the Claims Tribunal ciaiming compensation of Rs.12,11,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in •-Si^ ^^,^ .f"' an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus ( (Tata) bearing registration No.CG 05 B/1865 on 9-8-2006. On 9-8- 2006, the appellant/claimant was going along with her son on a motor bike Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 07 ZR/4262 as a pillion rider from Balod to Karhibhadar. When the motor bike was being driven on Durg-Balod Main Road, the Mini Bus (Tata), coming from Dhamtari side, being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed the motor bike, as a result ofwhich, the appellant/claimant sustained serious injuries on her person. The appellant/claimant got her injuries treated at various hospitals at Balod, Bhilai and Raipur. The appellant/claimant is a labourer and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondents filed their separate written statements. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 140 of the Act preferred by the appellant/claimant for grant of interim compensation vide order dated 1-5-2007. The appellant/claimant could not appear before the Claims Tribunal for adducing evidence due to her ill-health. The counsel for the appellant/claimant has filed an application before the Claims Tribunal praying for time to adduce evidence. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the application for time and closed the opportunity of the appellant/claimant to adduce evidence and has accordingly dismissed the claim petition vide impugned order dated 26-10-2007. • 4. We have heardlearned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. The reason of non- 'adducing of evidence by the appellant/claimant was her poor health. Gopal She herself is injured and was admitted in Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur on 12-8-2006 and was discharged on 25-9-2006 and she has also undergone operation in the said hospital on 15-8-2006. We have found various slips and receipts in the record of the Claims Tribunal with regard to medical treatment of the appellant/claimant. 5. The claim petition was filed on 25-11-2006 and it was dismissed on 26-10-2007 rejecting the claimant's application for time to adduce evidence despite reason of illness was stated in the application. 6. In the above circumstances, we feel that the appellanVclaimant should have been granted oppori:unity to adduce evidence. In view of the above, we allow the miscellaneous appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh. The claim petition shall be restored to its original number and after providing proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, the claim petition shall be decided by the Claims Tribunal as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 20 October, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd'- I.M.Quddusi Judge prashant Kumar Mishra Judge *r? is^y'^^^f^ a