IIJ®jiil^SIIIS^^^Si^i%Slliil1I^lj%^ m^!w^^^^ ^ ^ jApoellcsnts ICIaJmants ^' HI©HCOURtOFCHMATnS©ARHAT^ILASPUR M.A.{ONo.741 of 2009 1. Shyamla! S/o Dhururasn Sahu Aged about SOyears 2. Smt.Parwiti W/o Shyamiai Aged about 48 years 3, Ku.Synitei t)/p Shyambl Aged about 17 years, Msnor Appellant No.3 Repre^^nted by her guardian ond Father ShyamlaJ, AppeJlcxnt No.l : .,,.1; . •.. :! .•: :: ; . .- All R/o Vllhge Bhoring, '7T»ana Tumgaon/ District M<AdsamuncJ, (C,&) ^ Respondents Non-applicants •c Versus L Heeraram, S/o BudhGrar"/ Aged about 31 years. ft/o Viilage Bliorjng, ThariG- Tumgaon/ District M^hasamynd (C.S.) (Drsver of the Offendsng Vehicle bearsng ftegistration NQ. C6 06 B 9388) 2. ^endJal, S/o Mansmgh &AU, aged about 38 years, ft/o Vilfage Bhorjng, Thtwa-Tumgaon, &istrict Mahasdmund (C.©.)1 •1. . . i •,•:...,• (pwner pf the Offending Vehicle bea^mg Registration No* CS 06 B 9388) 3, Reliance fienerai Insurwice Company Limited, Forth Fioor, ftavi Bhawan, Jai Stambh Chowk Rajpur Djstrict Raipur (C.6.) ; (Insurer of the Offendjng Vehicle bearing fteQistratjon No. €6 06 & 9388) 4. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokyo ^enera! Insurance Company LJmited, Third FIoor, Laigangd Shopping Mai/ Opposjte Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, ftaipur (c.a).' : ! .'.''•' •;:1' :. '' 1 ; CEnsurer of 1+ie Motor Cycle C<©.04 Z 5936) (Appeal under section 173 of the MotorVehjcfe Act. 1988) ^^^^^E^F .^< ^ -..2.- • • • &B: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, Hon'bleMr. ft.N.Chandrakar, J.J .11 Present^' ' ! . '•' .• ..': ' ' •.....' ..;.: .. •.•.•. , ..;••-• M^- Satyendra Sahu, eounsel for thc oppellants; None present for respond<Bnts^No,l and 2. Mr<Sachin Singh Rajput/coun^j f^r respondent No,3. Mr^yashwant Singh Thakur, counse! for respondent No.4< JUD6MENT (Passed on 5th February, 2010) 1. By this appeo^l, the oppelfonts ha^^^^^^^^ of dismissal of c!aim petition dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Flrst Additiond Mo-ter Accident Cfaims Tribunal, Maha^imund (in short lthe Claims Trsbunai'), in ClQJm Ca% No.24/2008, whereby learnecl Claims Tribunal has dismissBd 1+ie ddm petition on the groyrsd that the appe!!c3ints haye failed to prove the fact that respondent No«lwas dtriying the offendJngyehicJeat the time of accident. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that deceoised Sanjay Sahu was driying motor-cycle bearing registration No.C,^04 €Z 5036 which was insurecl with respondent No.3 wos doshed by mini bus bearing nsgistration No.C^. 06 B 9388 owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.4. Bo+h the parties have led their eviclence, but the Cteims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitj^n on the ground that the appelSants have failed to prove the fact that at the time of acddent, respondent No.l was driving mini bus. 3. We haye hear'd learned coun^ for the partles, perused ttie award irnpugnedandrecordofl+ieClaimsTribunal . 4. From perusal of the record of 'rtie Claims Trjbunal, it appears that the offending vehjcie mini bus No. C.^ 06 B 9388 had dashed the motor cycle driven by the deceased< Respondents No,l and 2 have filed their wri^ statemeht and denled the <iiccicJent, but they have not denied the aliegation made in paragraph 3 of the claim petition tiiat respondent No.l -3- • ^ ^ , . was drsying -tih^ vehicle at the time ofvaccident. It is not disput^cl that the vehicle was owned by respondent No.2/l^espondent No.2 was under obli9<ition to spedfy sn his pleading that who was drjving the vehicle at the time of accident. But, they have notdenied th^^ not working as driver in the ^xid mini bus. 5- In tiie ab^nce of any specific deniaS, pleadin9 of r^spondent No.l and 2 was sufficient for admission of the fact thoit respondent No<l was driving the offending yehicleat the tsme of accident, but +he Claims Tribuna! has not considered this lega! ospect of the case and 1+iereby committed sllegality. r^. 6. por the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered vlew that the aword dismissing claim petition is not sus'tainable under tihe law: Consequently, the oppeal is allowed. Award Impugned is hereby set asldte, Cex^ remltted back to the First Additional Motor Accident Chims Tribunal, Mdiasamurid for deciding the claim petition on merits cxfter proy'di opportunity for adducing the evidence and hearing of the parties <ifresh« Parties are directed to remasn pre^nt before the Claims Tribynal on 22.3.2010. No order as to costs. Sd/- T-P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge