IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGASH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - ; S 2^2 ' OF 2009 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT, 1988) APPELL/VNTS CLAIMANTS 1. Diibeyram, S/oLate Siyaram, aged about 22 years, 2. Ku. Saroj Bai, D/o Late Siyaram, aged about 16years 3. Pukesh Kumar, S/o Late Siyaram, aged about 14 years, [Appellant No. 3 to 4 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appellant No. 1 SmtRamlaBai] All R/o- Village-Bhedia Nawagaon, Tahsil - Balod, District - Durg (C.G. ) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Amar Singh Mandavi S/o Chhabilram, NON-CLAIMANTS Mandavi, aged about 23 years, R/o Amapara, Balod, Tahsil - Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) [Driver of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G. 07- 0740] 2. Smt. Saroj Vaishnav, W/o Prahlad, Vaishnav, R/o Village- Balod, Tahsil - Balod, District - Durg (C.G.). [Registered owner of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G. 07- 0740] 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Power House, Bhilai, District-Durg(C.G.) [Insurer of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No, C.G. 07- 0740] MEMORANDUM OF APPEALtFNDER SECTION 173 OF THEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 B'" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE PRASHANT Kr. MISHRA, JJ, M.A.(C)No.1323 OF 2009 APPELLANT Smt. Ramla Bai and others Vs. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent no.3. ORDER(ORALl (17.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the Claimants against the award dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribuna, Balod, District Durg (C.G) in Claim Case No. 04/2007 dismissing the claim ofthe appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that on 07.05.2005, deceased Siyaram alongwith his son Dubeyram was coming from village Fagundah to Bhediya Nawagaon by vehicle bearing Regn.No.C.G.07/0740. On the way near Talagaon at about 5 p.m. the said vehicle which was being driven by resporident no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, turned turtle, as a result of which, Siyaram sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in primary health center, Balod where looking to the gravity of injuries, he was referred to Durg Hospital for better treatment. Thereafter Siyaram returned to his village. Again on 19.7.2005, he was admitted in Durg hospital where he died on 29.7.2005 durina the RESPONDENTS^ __ Amar Singh Mandavi and others 4 "1@S| I v '^^/ S<sS^ course of treatment as a consequence of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was running a Pan Thela, thereby he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. The claimants being dependents and legal representatives of the deceased have made claim to the tune of Rs.12,30,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal held that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased has died in the said accident and dismissed the entire claim ofthe appetlants. 4. We have perused the records of the Tribunal and the statements of witnesses corroborate the documents. The OPD papers have also been filed along-with the certificate regarding last admission of the deceased in the hospital. Though he was readmitted, but ultimately he died in the hospital during the course of treatment as a consequence of the injuries received in the said accident. However, it appears that proper statements of the medical officers have not been recorded by the Tribunal and full records have not been summoned. 5. Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides that the . Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed.date. 6. Further, we cannot ignore the provisions of section168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that that on receipt of an application for compensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal , sball after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of bejrig heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and subject to the •»1 S'SS^- g ji •SSS'f^h %.. •ia.—stf''. '%»..'W?T':'^ provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. However, the Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry and dismissed the claim. 7. This fact cannot also be ignored that the accident had taken place on 07.05.2005 and after the incident, a report was also lodged in the cohcerned police station on 20.06.2005 that is much before the death of the deceased and charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 8. !n view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 27.02.2008 and remit the matter back to the concerned Tribunal for decision afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to adduce further evidence, amend pleadings, file documents or get the documents verified etc., and thereafter the claim petition shall be decided on merits after conducting the enquiry in accordance with law, as early as possible. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back forthwith. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao /