IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. ^'i- /2008 APPELLANT/ CL.AIMANT ^ A^-<: ^f^ A~ .^ t-".' <?>• ^•--'A^ RtSPONDENTS : 1 ^ 2. "•I INSURER : 3, ^Raimatiya, W/o Late Shri Manikchand, Caste-Teli, aged about 55 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, Vegetable Stores, R/o Village-Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS Ehteshamul Haq, S/o Nesar Khan, aged about 20 years, Occupation-Studying, R/o Advocate Colony, Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil, Surajpur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) Nesar Khan, S/o Unknown, aged about 48 years, Occupation-Advocate, R/o Village Advocate Colony Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil, Surajpur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) Branch Manager The United India Insurances Company Limited Branch Near front of Ram Temple, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) \ APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT i^^M^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C.No. 372 Of 2008 APPELLANT Claimant Raimatlya VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Ehteshamul Haq & others <APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.t -l'y Present : Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1 & 2though served. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORALORDER (Passedon 08.11.2011) 1. Claim case No. 88/06 preferred by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') has been dismissed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31 .01.2008. 2. Shri DN Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the app^lant would submit : the accident has been admitted by the owner and driver of vehicle; police charge-sheeted driver of motorcycle having found him negligent, and the appellant/claimant is illiterate lady and due to improper advice she could not examine eye witness to prove the n^ligence of the motorcycle driver, and therefore, the matter may be remitted back before the concerned claims Tribunal for decision afresh. \- 1 .^ 3. On the other hand, Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/insurance company supported the award impugned and submit in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claimpetition whichdoes not call for any interference. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused theaward impugned aswell asrecords oftheTribunal. 5. Undisputedly, the accident has been admitted by the respondent/owner and driver of motorcycle, however, it has been denied by them that accident had'occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-6288. Applicant examined herself and one other pereon Vinod Kumar. Respondent examined Nisar Ahmed i.e. owner of the motorcycte. The Tribunal, believing statement of Nisar Ahmed, held appellanVclaimant failed toprove rash and negligent driving of motorcycle driver and dismissed the claim petition. 6. A bare perusal of statement of Nisar Ahmed would reveal he himself has not seen the accident. The appellant being illiterate lady, the Tribunal ought to have given her sufficient time toadduce evidence regarding rash and negligent driving by driver of motorcycle. The same has not been done. Therefore, the award impugned being not sustainable in Isnw deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the matter is remitted back to the concemed Tribunal for deciding claim petitlon afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. Needless to mention, the Tribunal shall afford proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to fileadditional documents, if any. 8. Records of Tribunal be sent back forthwith. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.12.2011 . No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawai Judge Sahu ^