HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 86 of 2007 Smt. Sukhmati, aged 25 years, wife of Shri Jiya Lal Kashyap, resident of village Pendri, tahsil Janjgir &district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Appellant VERSUS ldrish Ali, aged 26 years, son of Shri A. Haq, resident of village Aarimara Bahalpur, Police Station Sapur, district Dhuwri (Assam), at present address Dhimrapur Chowk, Vinod Agrawal Transport, Raigarh, Tahsil and district Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver) Vinod Kum‘ar, son of Shri S.N. Agrawal, resident of Tirupati Road Career, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3_ The Oriental insurance Company Limited. Branch Ofnce Raigarh (Divisional Manager), Block Office, Sunday Market, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh (insurer) 4. Bhagat Ram aged 40 years, son of Shri Ram Bharos Kashyap, resident of Chaurabhata, police station Shivrinarayan, tehsil Nawagarh, district Janjgir Champa C.G. (Owner of tractor) 5. Byas Narayan, aged 40 years, son of Shri Sahukar Kashyap, resident of Budena, police station Janjgir, tehsii Nawagarh, district Janjgir—Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver of tractor) Respondents 1. WMWWWWMWWWVéWMWW .y 2 Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008 Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehic!e Act. Present: Shri Somnath Verma, for the appellant. Shri Sushil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri R.R. Soni, counsel for respondent No.4. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 105 of 2008 mwsmmmm:ammwmmmwmmw MW w u u- " Appellant . Vinod Kumar. son of S.N. Agrawal, Non—applicant aged about 40 years, occupation Business, resident of Tirupati Road Career, Dheemarapur Chowk, Raigarh, district Raigarh, C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1, Md. ldrish Ali, aged 27 years, son o Shri A. Haque, resident of Aarimara Bahalpur, Dubri (Assam), at present r/o Dheemarapur Chowk, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Respondent! 2. Sukhmati, w/o Shri Jiyalal, aged Applicant about 25 years, resident of Pendri, tahsil Janjgir & district Janjgir— Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3' The Oriental Insurance Compa Limited, through Divisional Manager, Block Office, Sunday Market, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4‘ Bhagatram aged about 40 years, son of Shri Rambharosh Kashyap, resident of Chaurabhata, police station Sheorinarayan, tehsil Navagarh, district Janjgir Champa C.G. 5_ Vyas Narayan, aged 40 years, son of ' Shri Sahukar Kashyap, resident of Budena, police station Janjgir, tehsil Navagarh, district Janjgir—Champa Chhattisgarh 3 Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008 Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Sushil Sahu, counsei for the appellant. Shri Somanth Verma, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri R.R. Soni, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (02nd August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned award dated 09.11.2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short ‘the Tribunai’) in claim case No.77/2005 has given rise to filing of these two appeals Le. M.A.C. No.86/2007 and M.A.C. No.105/2008. MAC. No.86/2007 is at the behest of claimant Smt. Sukhmati for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 105/2008 has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle against the impugned award exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 2) tt appears that as many as nine claim petitions were med by different claimants before the Tribunal arising out of the motor accident which took place on 19.10.2004, involving the two vehicles i.e. Dumper bearing registration No.C.G.13ZC-0172 and Tractor- Troiiey bearing registration Nos. C.G.1 1ZC-2199 and C.G.1 1ZD- 2200. Vinod Kumar, the owner of the offending vehicle Dumper filed seven other appeals against the awards passed by the Tribunal in the other claim cases and those appeals were numbered as MA.C. 4 Misc. Appeals (C) Nos‘86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008 NOS. 804/2007, 805/2007, 806/2007, 1142/2007, 1415/2007, 1416/2007 and 87/2008.‘ All these seven appeals were decided by a Division Bench of this High Court order vide dated 30.06.2011 whereby ali those seven ciaim cases were remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh with the following directions: “10. ln view of the above, we allow these appeals, ' med by the owner namely Vinod Kumar, in part and set aside the impugned awards and remit the matters back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. lt will be open for the Claims Tribunal to re-assess the quantum of compensation afresh after framing issues in the light of observations made above and recording its finding thereon. All the claim petitions shall be consotidated and decided afresh.” 3) The grounds taken by appellant Vinod Kumar in M.A.C. No.105/2008 are almost the same which were taken by appellant Vinod Kumar in the above mentioned other seven appeals. 4) In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to remit this claim case also to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in terms f the directions contained in the above quoted para 1O of the order dated 30.06201 1. 5) As the other appeal tiled by claimant Smt. Sukhmati (M.A.C. No.86/2007) also arises out of the impugned award dated 09.1 1 .2006, which is the subjectmatter of M.A.C. No.105/2008 also, we deem it proper to further direct that the Tribunal shall assess the compensation afresh and claimant Smt. Sukhmati shall be at liberty to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. Misc. Appeais (C) Nos.86 5 of 2007 & 105 of 2008 ([l UK 6) For the’foregoing rgasons, both the appeals Le. M.A.C. Nos.86l2007 and 105/2008 are allowed. The impugned award dated 09.11.2006, passed in claim case No.77/2005 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petitionar afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the ‘ parties of adducing evidence in support of their case. 7) Registry is directed to send back the records immediately to the Tribunal. 8) No order as to costs. ' ’ " Sd/— sty— RajeeV Gupta N.K.J A1garwa1 Chief Justice 1 . ucge