€,{- ^ ,/ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR M.A^CLNQ, '/2008 Uiv^nn BaRff&i !^s^^ij^u;j ^^!lii$^1 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1,. 2. 3. ^^ ...••' eX^ •; ^'"^^\^ yy^y- •^-^L^" ^jV^ ^^wt r1''''" A... ^vsl-' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. ..2-: Mus Manmati aged about 38 years, son of Late Gulab Singh Basant Singh son of Late Gulab Singh Gond, aged about 20 years Veer Singh Gond aged about 75 years, son ot' Late Mangal Gond Jhuna Bai, aged about 70 years, wife of Shri Veer Singh Gond, All are resident of village Jagatpur, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea(CG). Presently resident pf village Mohanbhatha, Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Sukhdeo Khairwar, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Amol Khairwar, R/o. Viii. JMagpur, Police Chowki, Nagpur, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) Ganesh Prasad Sahu, son of Dani Ram Sahu, aged about 45 years, resident of village Layee, Tah. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) (Owner of Jeep No. CG16-A/0346) 3. ^ Branch Manager, The United inaia insurance Co. Ltd. Near Ram Mandlr, AmDiKapui, uirougn uie Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Lm. Rajendra Nagar, Chowk, Bilaspur(CG). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDE&SECTIQNJ/73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 996 of 2008 AppeUants Mus Manmati & others Versus Respondeuts Sukhdeo Khairwar & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: HonTale Shri Satish K. Agmhotri & Hon'ble SlulJusti.ee N. K. Agarwal, JJ Ms Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate for fhe appeUants. None for fhe respondent No.l. Shri Yogeshwer Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Seiuor Advocate with Ms Ritu Rani Muldierjee, Advocate forthe respondent No.3. ORDBR(OraU ( Passed on fhis 9th day ofNovember, 2009) Heard. This appeal arises fiTOin the award dated 3.3.2008, passed by fhe Motor Accident Clauas Tnbunal, Bilaspur ia Claim Case No.44/2006. The bricffacts, ia nutsheU, are fhat the appeUaats/claimaats filed a claun casc for coiupensation on fhe groiuid that on 23.7.2006 Gulab Siagh was teavelmg fix>m Nagpur to Baikunthpur m fhe Jecp bearmg regtetration No. C.G.-16 A/0346 as a p^senger, after maldng payinent as fare. Because of fhe rash and negligent driviug of fhe respondent No. 1 that vehiclc inet with aa accident, as a result ofwhich, Gulab Singh dicd. The plca of the respondents No. 1 and 2 befbre the Tribunal was fhat the jeep was hit by uaknown truck. The accident was not occurred because of the rash and negli^ent driviag of the Jeep. The smular defence was taken by fhe respondent No.3. Haviag heaid leamed counsel appearmg for the parties aad Iiawing perused fhe documents appended thereto, it is evident that leamed Tribunal ordy on the basis of fhe iBrst information report 6. 8. 9. 2-- (Ex.P/3), lodged by the appeUaats about fhe iacident, wheBeia it was reported that fhe Jeep was lut by aoine iinkaown Iruck, which was beiag driven rash aud negligently, disaussed thc claun petition. It is clear that fhe Tnbunal has not considered other aspects of the inatter. The Tribiuial has failed to consider the fact fhat fhe dece^sed Gulab Singh was a passenger in the Jeep on payment, may be driyer of fhe Jeep or fmknown truck, was negligeat, but the fact reniains fhat Giilab Singh was tdt and died due to Che accident. The dependents of the deceased Gulab Siugh are entitled for coiupensation not Scom. the insurer, owner and driver of the imkaown truck alone, but basicalty fix>m. the insurer, owner and driver of fhe jeep, joiatly or scveraUy. The Tribunal has not considered fhis aspect before rejecting the claua. lu view of the foregoing, the impugned award dated 3.3.2008 is set-aside. The Tnbunal is directed to consider and decide fhe claita case of the appeBante afresh, particularly on the issue of negligence of the parties, ia accordance with law, on its own nierits, as early as possible. The parties are permitted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. The obseryations, if aay, inade hereinabove, shaU not be construed as our opinion on ment. The appeal is aUowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. The Registry is directed to send back fhe papers, requisitioned fiiom. the Tnbunal, forthwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwai Judge Thakur \: