IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) No.isn'of 2010 APPELLANT/ 1-applicant no. 3 ^6^^ : ^Anurag Sales Agency, Maan Bhimeshwari Mandir Road, Sakti, Tahsil-Sakti, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ,\\':..V^- -^ERSUS ......^•' RESPONDENTS/ ^? Karam Singh Ajgalle, S/o Jagmohan Singh, aged about 48 years, ^ ''•J 1 ^ ^?^^ ',,-Th cornyl (QI^O^ cl- {'K^'b I ^ Ct.r''/)-co4 < cA'hs? - 8' •'S-^ Smt. Basanti Bai, W/o Karam Singh Ajgalje, aged about 46 years^ ^^S^i^~- 3^ 'Jagmohan Singh, S/o ^JHetragi, ^ Ajgalle aged about 73 ye^r'^To^- ^ Village-Malkharauda, P.S. & Ta'hsil-12-^" Malkharauda, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) A~^ f ^ 1^(61^ ^l^^ r'-^^ct^^^- ^l-'- .uA- Kanhaiya Yadav, S/o Setram, age not known, R/o Village-Kharri, P.S. & Tahsil- Malkharauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (non-applicant no. 1) ^, ^ Lachchharam, S/o Mangalchchhas, age not known, R/o Uchchhapara, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) y/^ (non-applicant no. 2) 1VIEMOOF APPEAL UNDER SECTIONS73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT1988 If HIGIi^CaURT^FCHHATTlSGARH_: BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 1255 of 2010 Appellant Anurag Sales Agency Versus Respondents Karam Singh Ajgalle 85 others APPEALUNJ3ER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES_A_CT,_1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri. G, Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the appeliant. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 8s 2 Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDE^ (Qrall ( Passed on this 22nd day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal, filed by Anurag Sales Agency, arises from t'ne irapugned award dated 5.10.2010, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, in Claim Case No. 36/2009, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,32,500/- as compensation, holding the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, including the ' present appellant, as liable to pay the amount of compensation Lo the claimants. T.he, brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the claimants, are that on 24.4.2009 deceased Devendra Kumar Ajgalle along with his friend Idneshwer Bhardwaj was going on his motorcycle to distribute marriage cards to his relatives. On the way, at about 9.30 a.m. near Nagjher Turning of village - Bade Seepat, the ,,/>s^.. "%. 1 ^SISS-i 1 '"i';s!h~—...vs ..-•i;^s/' "•''^sssssy'" ^,'u motorcycle was hit by the Swaraj Tractor, bearing registration No. C.G. ll-A/9260, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No. 1 (Kanhaiya Yadav). The non-applicant No. 3 Anurag Sales Agency had sold the Tractor to the non-applicant No.2 (Lacchram Banjare). The dependents of the deceased (father, mother and grand-father) had filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 47,98,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record came to the conclusion that at the relevant time the offending Tractor was owned by the present appellant/Anurag Sales Agency and without completing the formalities to sell, the Tractor was handed to the non-applicant No.2, therefore the present appellant, being owner of the offending Tractor, is liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,32,500/- to the claimants.joint.ly and severally. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court records. The claims Tribunal has framed two issues (Issue No. 2 and 3) in respect of deciding the question to fastening the liability to pay com.pensation. In fact, nobody was the registered owner of the tractor in question as the purchaser had not got the registration of the same with the registering authority (RTO). However, additional documents have been filed by the appellant to show that the non- applicant No.2 was the registered owner of the offending Tractor. The finding has been given by the Tribunal that the owner of the tractor was the appellant and the purchaser was a representative ofthe sales agency/appellant. The additional documents have been filed in this appeal which shows that the tractor in question was got registered on the basis of the sale letter, issued in Form 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The year of manufacture has been mentioned as 2004 but the sale letter purported to be issued on 27.6.2008 that is also before the date of accident. Therefore, the better course, as we think would be, to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal shall conduct a proper enquiry fo ascertain the facts. The record from the R.T.O. concern shall be summoned and the parties shall be provided opportunity to lead additional evidence. 7. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 5.10.2010 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this order. No order as to costs. 8. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal, as early as possible. 9. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be allowed to be withdrawn by it, 10. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 16th November, 2011. 11. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Thakur Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge