IN .THE HIGH COURT QF JODICA'BCTaE AT BILASPUR (G.Q.) M.A. Na. f^'i /2®@3. c^— APEELIAK'rs e&AIHABTS /^-^^^T.-^ *^. ...<^ ^.•"&^' yfSsf ^•U) 2) (3) C4) (5) BwisionBench Smt. Rahi Bai Tamrakar Bidaw^ sf I<ate Sri Ramesh Tarnra'kar, . Aged ab®ut-5@yE Rakesh Kamar Taarakar S/». Late Sri Ramesh Tararakar, Ageel abeut- 27 years Rajesh Kunar Tamrakar S/» Iiats sr± Ramesh A'geal absat -25 years. Kuma^i sumruti D/e.La-te Sri ilamesh Tatncakar, Aged ^abaut - 24 years. Praaleep Kuinar S/a.Late Sri aaaiesh Tamrakar, Aged absat- 22 years. <^-' *» All fi.esialene* a£ ViXlage - Ashwani Nagar, Raiyar. Distt - Raipur (C.G.) KBSEOHDENTS Versas ^ (1) (2) t^ Naveea ?rasad Panaey S/« Sri. Kamla Erasaia Eaia^cy Ageat ab®B-fc— 32 years, Thr^gh i Puait Ram Paiadey a/a.Vi.llage- Iiaqaa, Tahsil Bal®<a.Bazar,Distt-Raigur Smt«Ma<lhyri Pandey, Wifa sf Sri Kainia Prasad EaBdey. Thraugti » Punlt Ram Pasadey, B/« Vtllage- Lawaa, TahsU-Bal9«a Bazar Distt- Saiyur (e.G.) Orlentlal iBsiiirance e»« Ssarr- DiviisiwaaX Ha.sa.ge c Divlsl®nalOffles, Madiaa Building, Raiyur (C.G.) IIW APPEAt HHSSSSBCfI^- 173. CSP TKE MOTOR ^SiaaEfcS fSX t^' CI.AIM IN APEEAfc 'VA&Ila3,AB*.[BS,*aleiAKHS (^(O^a.ciTO") 'Bejxg aggrievea by the awarii dafbe^ 13/®3^2:e§3. yassed 6y Vltshaeditiiia.l iaet.aF aecidea-6 ciajlm Sr'it:ii.iK»X||- 'Raigur in elatm case'tl®*'82/2®a2,:t.1ae aameA ab©veiirst "feumlal.y.beg te'yrefer alia •ni the fsllawisg fasts an<l gr-sui s: tH instant :agpea3.^.isi'ger11 .-;^^ ».^ M ^? t:irl'i':"?'|-— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCyUtH. BltASPWt DB: HOWBLB I.M. QUDDU8I &s HOirBLE N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC.APPEAL KO. 774 OF 2003 Vs. APPEARANCE: Mr. Vaibhav Gbvardhan, counsel for:the apj)eUant. Mr. Pawan Kesarwani, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. G. S. Patel, counselfor respondent no.3. ': \ Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J ORDER (ORALI 06.10.2010) 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimaats against fhe impugaed award dated 13.03.2003 passed by the VI Addl. Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, Raipur, ia Claim Case No.82/2002 dismissing the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case according to the versiou of claimflnts are fhflt on 22.10.2010 Ramesh Tamrakar (deceased) was going to his sister's house at Lawan by his Scooter.bearing Regn.No.M.P.23-K/3093. He was drivu^; the r scooter on the lefit side of the road at a low speed. At the tiine when he reached Lamaa, one Coiiuaander Jeep bearing Regu.No.M.P.23-0/9420 beBag driven by respondeut no.l i-ashly-and negl^entty, dashed the Scooter as a result of , wluch Ramesb Tanyakar sustained serious injury and his scooter was also daiaaged. He was admitted in Hospital at -3- APPBLLANTS » Sint Rahi Bai Tamratair and ofhers RB8POMDENTS Navecn Prasad Pandey aad others «", Lawan. But looldng to ihe gravity ofiajuiy he was brought to Raipur where he was adnutted in Sttrirain Hospital and X- Ray wes done by Dr. Dubey ia which a fracture was detected ia his left arm. Dr. Dubey conducted an operatioa and a rod was inserted. There were also iajuries on the other parts of the body aad stitches were niade. However, the condition of tfae deceased was aot iiaproved and- it was further deteriorated and on 28.10.2000 he died in Paudey Nursing Hoiue. 3. The Tribuaal has held that the deceased has not sustauned serious iajiiiy in the accident occurred dufe to rash aad negligent driviag of the diiver of the ofifendiag vehicle aud it has not been proved fhat fhe accident occurred on accouat of nustake of the deceased. It has further held that it is not proved that non-appUcaat no.l and fhc deceased wene having no vaUd aad driviag license at the time ofaccideat. 4. The fact that the accident took place wifh the vehicle ia question is not disputed. The expenses iacurred in toeatment are also supported by cash meinos on record. The invoice of Paadey Nursiag Hoiae, Raipur 1s also on record and fhe Certtficate of Dr. Pradeep Pandey regardiag death of the deceased due to caidio-respiratoiy arrest on 28.10.2000 at 1 p.in. which was a c&se of Trauinatic Perforation, is also available on record. Therefore, the iastant case was not a case in wtuch the claun of the claiinants could whoUy be disjnis d. S. In view of fhe facts and carcuinstanceg of tfae case, we are of the opinion that the matteF.jequires reconsideiation at the ffi^ Cl s^ end of MACT cpncemed. Therefore, we allow fhis appeal ia part, set aside fhe impugned award dated 13.03.2003, remit the matter back to fhe MACT for decision afiresh. The claim. petition shatl be restored to its or^mal nuiuber and aa opportunity shatl be provided to fhe parties to adduce evidence if any. The parties shaU appear before the MACT conceraed on 26th of October. 2010. The MACT concemed shall decide the claim. petition aa earty as possible preferabty withia a period of 4 inonfhs firem the date of appearauce of the pardes. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Kao VSd/- ; NAAgrawal Judge I: 'E'T^^'iijferrnEnrj- 'y^si;IN^^S^:l^^^g 'J'!!i^!^^?!^?"^ •s&4?»tee^-'i^efS^.^^..