^ AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (C) N0. 224 I '2007 PETITIONERS NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS ^-- 1] Shriram Nayak, S/o. Shri Ratan Singh, Nayak, Aged about 60 years, 2] Savitri Bai, Wd/o. Bhim Nayak, Aged about 30 years, 3] Manish (minor) S/o. Bhim Nayak, Aged about 12 years, 4] Lokesh (minor) S/o. Bhira Nayak, Aged about 11 years Petitioner No. 3 85 4 through their natural guardian i.e. mother (petitioner No.2) All above resident of Darripali, P.0. Kalenda, Police Station 6s Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS 1] Smt. Bhagwati Sahu, Wd/o. Late Dhobaram Sahu, Aged about 48 years, ^ ^ ti' 2] Ku. Shyanti (minor), D/o. Late Dhobaram Sahu, Aged about 15 years, 3] Ku. Sulochana (minor) D/o. Late Dhobaram Sahu, Aged about 12 years, Respondent No. 2 & 3 through their natural ;uardian mother (respondent No.l) All above resident of Kalenda, Police Station 8s Tahsildar. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / 5 PETITIONERS COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR Sinste Bench: Mors'bfe Shri Justice Prashant Ky?nar Mishra Writ Petition (Cl No. 22w 2Q37 Shriram Nayakand ofc'iers. Versua Smt, Bhagwafri Sahu and others. Shri Vaiuhav Goverdhan, rourisei for the pefitionefs. •tisv-sif s^^'Vt'y^^H.,^s 'S £&as~.^°^ A.&Ve^t>^ SK ^.fr'y -^^g? T'£_i£°^'^^^Ss.t^TS'?"? ^T'a^^fti ^%^ fKi* fr'fc i HJQW UNUcn AKHyj-isii2tUt" i Mfc vyN-5 II i U I iUN Uf IRALQI (19.11.2010) The Craims Tribunal has ttse peliUonsR' ynder Ord&r 14 Ruie 5 of C.r.C. for Inodifyiny ttie jssue ard foi frarfring additiorsat issue. (2) The are ttie Segal representatives of the owner of Jeep No. C.G.06?ZD/OS85, was driwng the vehlcie on flse date of (3) to the the Sahu was on board in the jesp at the tirne of accidsnt. Thjs ptea mads in para 22 of ths claim pefioon has not been disputed by the present petrtjoriera/non-claimants irs para 6 of their repnf. it is further steted Jn the jef»yfited by the pstitioriers in fect the hit by ynknowri vdiicte arrd ttius th®owner driver of the was not responsibie for the ac-cident. (4) A4>p!iC-ation under Order 14 Ruie 5 of C.P.C. was pfefsrred for modffication of issue No.1 and for framing an aduitionaj issue and dwiding (t as preiiminary issus. In issus No.1 ft is nwntioned as to whether ui8 offer'ding jeep was driven in a rash and nsgigent manner and had hit the 'decsassu Dhobaram S-ahu resuifina in his death. Leamed counsei w'ould W5>. .< ~<<j '•(> ^ ^<... •. ^^ i '^ ^ '"''•aFmc. ^. s^ subrnit that it Is not the cass of any of ms parties that Dhobaiam Sahu was hft by the jeep, thus ihe framing of the Issue needs to be modified. On perusal of the pieadirigs, the conteityon made by Shri Vaibhav Govsrdhan, ieamed counse! for ttie petitiorsers appears to t»correct issue No.1 is, thsrefore, modified and shait be read in the foiiowsng rnanner :- 'Vvheffiei' the wvrieR'dfwer of Commaruer Jees,' Ho. SWZD/WB5 Shri Btoeffr Hayak was ditwry ie Jeep in issh arid negfigent rnanner at 03:30 a.ni. on Oi-Q2-S 3 on Naiiorai Higf'way tvo.6 caii&ng imiiries iBWiSfy in deaffi of Dhobaiam Satw?" (5) The other contentiQn in ttie appiic-atioR was that in the finai report sybmitted by the Poiice it is rnsritioned that an unknown vehjcls had caussd irie accioeni ana tne saia Tact nas ueen suDrniuW in uie repty iiieu Dy uis pefitioners, therefore an issue in thls rsgard is requ'red to be frarned anu tried as prelirninary issue. (6) In the OBinion of uiis Court uie said ptea is the deferice of the peiitionersHion-cjaimants. It is not the case of the ciairnanis that ynknown vehicle had caussd the acciderrt. Whiie decjding issue No.1 th6 Tribunal would be reqyirwl tu adjudicate as to wheffser the acddent took plac-e on account of rash arid negiSgent drivir^ of the driver of the jsep. In order to rscord such finding the teamed Tritunai would be requJsed to deaj with afl such evidence puf forth by the partiss inciuuing petttionera. Neediess to say that whiie contesting ths clairn petiuon, the pefitlonws wouid be enuUed tu iead evidence by piacing a!i documentary and orat evidence on record tu substantiate their case that the jeep was not involved in the accident and in fact^thQ jeep was dashsd by an yniuwwn vehicte wtiich has caused the "^/ accldent. Thus, fhe said piea ofthe petitionere is included in issue No.1 and .i.^.i-N 'ye ' ^ g s|g,! ':^ •^ ^--s'../' -$3 s no additionai issue is rsqulrwl to be frameu. Th®petiuoners wuuld i»at iiberfry to iead evidence to prove ttieir case that the accldent was mt eaysed by the uriver of use jeep, The petition yius paiuy suc'ceeds. tssue No. i is rnodifieu, howev&r prayerfor additional issue is f9ject9u. prashantKumarMishra • Judge p. i-^