HIGHCOURTPFCHHATTISQJURHATBILASPUR Covsasi :Hoa*ble Sfari T.P.Sharma and Hoa^ble Shri R. L. Jhaawar, JJ. M.A.(CLNo.372/201P APPBLLANT AppSicasat RBSPONDBNTS Non-appUcants Snit. Ramayaa Kuwar aged 45 years w/o Shri Shivcharaa Grain Bhaadarkhol Tah Pali District Korba CG Versus 1. Maagal Bhavaa Kawar aged 23 years s/o Shri Prenisiagh Kawar 2. Chandaa Singh aged 30 years s/o Shri Surusingh Kawar Both R/o Gram Saiia Tah Pali District Korba CG 3. The Oriental Insuraace Compaay Ltd. Thrc»ugh fhe Zonal Manager, The Oriental Insuraiice Coinpaay Ltd. lufront of Rajeev Plaza Bus Staad Road, BUaspur CG APPEAL U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shn Anurag Dayal Shiivastava, couiisel for fhe appeUaat, Shri Somnafli Verma, counsel for rcspondents No. 1 aiid 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORALORDER (22.07.2010) Per T.P.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed agamst tiie award dated 23.9.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Clahns Tribunal, Katghora, (ia short 'the Tribunal3) ia .,.,,,.^S3tl Claixn Case No.84/2008, whereby the learaed Clamis Tribunal has disniissed fhe claim petition on the ground fh.at fhe appeUaat has failed to prove the fact of deafh of fhe deceased Shivcharan as a result of niotor accident. The award is impugned on the ground that while dismissiag fhe petition, Clauns Tribunal has not considered the evidence available on record-sufficient for proving the fact of death of Shivcharaa as a result of inotor accident aad fhereby coniraitted iUegaMty. As per pleadings of the parties on 14.3.2007, deceased Shivcharan was traveluig ia Tractor No.CG 12F 0851, aad TroUy No.CG 12F 0852. Respondent Nol- Mangal Bhawaa was driviag fhe Tractor, owned by respondent No.2, Insured witihi respondent No.3. Respondent No.l was driving fhe vehicle rashly an^d negUgenUy, as a result of such act, he raet with aa accident and fhereby caused serious injunes to Shivcharaa. Shivcharaa was sent to P,H.C. Pali and thereafter, he was referred to Bilaspur Hospital aad frora fhere to Raipiir Hospital. On 14.4.2007, he was reUeved from Raipur Hospital aad thereafter, on 15.4,2007, he died ia his house as a result of such uijury. The report of fhe iacident was lodged on saine day. Thereafter, present appellaat has filed fhe claims petition on account of death of her husbaad. Respondents No, 1 and 2 have denied fhe aUegations and alleged that Shivcharaii has not died as a result of niotor accident, he died as a result of illaess. Respondent No.3 has denied fhe allegations and stated fhat fhe Insurance Conipaay is not Uable for payinent of conipensation on account of deafh of Shivcharaii as there was a breach ofpoUcy. 5. After affordiag 0x1. opportunity of hearing to fhe parties. leamed Tnbunal has disniissed fhe clamis petition. 6. We have heard Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learaed counsel for fhe appeUant and Shri Soinnafh Venna aad Shri Sudhir Agrawal, leamed counsel for fhe respondents, award impugned aad record of fhe Clamis Tribunal penised, 7, Leamed Tribunal has disiaissed the Claims petition on fh.e groundfh.at fhe appellaat has not been able to prove fhe fact fhat her husband has died as a result of niotor accident. In the present case, appeUant has exainined hersetf as P.W. 1 aad Mansiagh as P.W.2 to whoin it has been suggested by respondents No. 1 aiid 2 fhat her husbaad was sent for treatment to PaU Hospital Le. as deposed by her, but fhereafter he was reUeved frora fhe hospital, 8. In fhe present case, copy of FI,R. Ex.P/7 revealed fhat F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent No.2 on fhe date of iacident, in which, it has been specificaUy inentioned that Shivcharan was seriously iajured aad he was taken to P.H.C. PaU for niedical aid, but fhe appellant has not filed any docunient of ti:eataient although as per clamis petition, he was treated at PaU, Bilaspur aad thereafter to Raipur. His treatnient at Pali finds support froin the prom.pUy lodged FJ:R. Ex. P/7 by respondent No.2- owner of fhe vehicle, but only fhis fact is not sufficient for drawing aa inference fhat fhe deceased Shivcharan has died as a result of inotor accident, especially, in fhe Ught of Ex,Dl, his deatii report/deafti certificate. It appears fhat an. opportunity to adduce evidence to unfold fhe real story has not been provided to fh.e pardes, which ought to have been graated. /";• /; l^-i:e,... t •"iy^ ;i? l.fr \;- •^•^" • .-'•':'' 9. 10. 11. Consequently, ftie appeal is aUowed, The award impugned is hercby set aside. The case is reinitted back to fhe Court ofAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Katghora for providiag an opportunity of adduciag evidence to fhe pardes aad to decide fhe case afresh. Record of fhe Claiois Tribunal be also sent back to the conceraed Tribunal. Parties are directed to rexnaia present before fhe Claiias Tribzmal on 26th August, 2010. No order as to costs. ^^^^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge