J.N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘l"i‘ISGARI—£__AT BILASPU .G. )w §®1igma Bégm 7, Misc. Appeal No. £32. /2oo4. APPELLANT Non-applicant No . 2 : Sukaluram Yadav S/o shri Arjun, Caste Yadav, R/o village Negiguda ‘ j Para, Ghatpadmur, P.S. Parapa (Frazerpur) , Tahsil Jagdalpur, 3 ‘ Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ( OWNER OF VEHLECLE ) 3.‘ VerSklS .‘1‘ RESPONDENTS l. Smt. Rewatimani Pandey W/o late RameSh Pandey, aged 37 years. 2. ,Ku. Ambika D/o late Ramesh Pandey, aged 17 years. Ku. Simamani D/o late Ramesh Pandey, aged 14 years. Ku. Hemlata D/o late Ramesh Pandey, aged 12 years. Ku. Dileshwari D/o late Ramesh Pandey, 4 age& 10 years. sr.Nos. 2 to 5 are minor thrpugh legal guardian mother smt.Rewatimani w/o late Ramesh Pandey. All caste BraEman, R/‘o Village Karkapal AawaSplotpar a, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (RESPONDENT NOS. 1 t8 5 CLAIMANTS) 6. Shri Naguram s/o Padumnath, aged 3O years, R/o village Kumhrawand, P.S. Par‘apa Frazerpur, 'Tahsil Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (c.G.)9DRIv3R, OF vemcw iion—applicant No.1)‘v Exaag L4,zx. i r i" r ‘ 7. State Bank of india, Agriculture Development Branch, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G-) ( NON-A1>£>LICANT Nag.) g / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1'73 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT J5 V ?4, Page :NQ,@ I) U W\A. DIVIS!QN QEN N’BLE MR. l. . EN M.A. No.852 OF 2004 Sukaluram Yadav APPELLANT NON-APPLgCANT No.2 ‘ Vs ‘RegpoNDENTs Smt. Rewatimani‘ & others APPEAL UNDEg VEHICLES SECTIQN ACT 173 OF THE MOTOR_ -——-——..._~__~ Present: Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate, for the appeilaKf. .m§ CQVUET OF C HATHS‘GABH AT EILA§PUE CH: HON’BLE HO MR.NAWAL KISHORE M gUDDU§l£ AGAEWAL, _ JJ. Pandey None for the respondents. ORDER (Oran (21“ september, 2010) LM, Quddusi. J; ‘1; Despite service of notice. no tone appears for the 2. With the censent of the learned counsel if appenant, the metter is heard finaHy. respondents. (F.T.C.), Jagdaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal') in Ciaim Case No.153/2002 by owner of the vehicle (Tractor~trolley) bearing registration No. MP 25l9357-9358. ' 4. Brief facts of the case are that as per claim petition or the agriouiturai form was dashed with the Tractor- bearing registration No. MP 25/935'7-9358 by ras negligent driving of the offending vehicie (tractor-t as a result of which Ramesh “Pandey died on the sp trolley h and roiley) ot and Km » l filed by the ciaimants on 15-07-2001, in the‘evening, Ramesh Pandey (since deceased) aio‘hg‘with one Asturam sitting on the back—side white returning from Jagdalpur to Karkapai, by his motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 25 AA/5883, near village KumharaWand, in‘ front of / Asturam who was sitting as pimon rider, sustained injuries in t said accident. 5. The ciaimants who are unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased have preferred a claim petition befere the Tribunal concerned claiming compensation of Rs.19,66,176/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident. 6. We have perused the record of the learned Tribunal. Then learned Tribunal concerned found that FIR was lodged at the instance of Asturam at about 23-20 hours in which it has been stated that the driver of the tractor ran away from the spot and he could not see the registration number of the Tractor, as there was dark at night hours. 7. 8. The owner of the Tractor namely Sukluram Yadav and driver of the Tractor namely Naguram have specifically stated in their statement that no accident had taken place on “15-07—2001and the tractor was being used only for agricultural purpose and the driver has stated that he had not gone on the date of incident or near the date of incident with the tractor to Kumarwand, Palli Chitrakot Road. The Tractor was hypothecated to the State Bank of lndia as the same was taken on loan. 9. The Tribunal concerned has mentioned in para 14 of the impugned award that it may be possible that the injured could not have seen the registration number of the Tractor but the claimants have filed the certified copies of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. On perusal of which shows that the driver Naguram has only dashed the Motorcycle resulting in the death of the deceased and Asturam sustained injuries and decided the issue about the fact of incident accordingly“. 10. lt is a question for consideration that the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.'cannot be reiied in the proceedings before the MACT unless they are proved by the witnesses who gave statement. But there is no corroboration of the witnesses in the Tribunal proceedings and the statement was also not controverted. ln the above V“I 1E. l he @ circumstances, the finding given by the iearned Tribunai is not sustainabie in law and in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunai. 11. in the result‘ the appeal is allowed and thelimpugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal concerned to decide the same afresh with a direction to restore the claim petition to its original number. The Tribunal shall also allow the parties concerned to adduce the further evidence, if any, if they so desire and decide the claim petition afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of \ a a ‘3’ six months fronithe g date of appearance of the parties. Sdl— . 1*i I.M.Quddusi Judge