IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH •^ M.A. (Q Noj^ / 2010 ^ ^ "' \.i \^^ "; ^'" i"'^ ij Jl ^v ff ?:"ne Appellants -Gomplainante ($>}^tTVWvJ~*5 ^ / ^'l^' L^v^ ^y^ 3- Gambhir Singh, S/o Ashok Singh, aged about 60 years. Sita Bai W/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh^ aged about 24 years, Jaikaran, S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh^ aged about 6 years, Appellant No. 3 Through his legal guardian Gambhir Singh All R/o Village Magardaha Dafai Ledri, P.S. Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Sushant Chalcravarti, S/o Shri Jiwan Krishan Chakravarti, aged about 43 years, R/o Dafai No. 7, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.) (Owner Vehicle No. C.G. 16/1057) ^ 2. RameshBaiga, S/o Ramswaroop, aged about 22 years, R/o Magardaha Dafailedri, P.S. Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.) (Driver ofVehicle No. C.G. 16/1057) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Insurer ofVehicle No. C.G. 16/1057) \^ <;?> HI©HGOUftTOFCHH,4^mS©ARHATBILASPUR ^IMISIGhLBENCH: 1 HON'BLEMR.I.^.Oy&&USIi& HON'BLEMR.N^ALJa^ORE^^WAL..TJ. ^DDeJlants Respondents M.A.(ClNo.143/2010 fi^bhir 5ihgh^^^^^& Vs SusharttCIWikrotVQrti^others forresponderitNo-l. €' PNisent: Mr&AnjuAlTuja,^dv.fortheappe i3s 5harmjiaSingha},Ady.wi1+iMr.SanjayAgarw^ ^r. Dc^hrath Supta,^^^^^^^^^^^^ OR&ERfOraiy (22nd Noveinber. 2010) 1 l^.Chj^usi. J: .•.l.,^.,,':':..|''.:-:...' l-l.'Heard.C,,,,,';;....,;|' j^.^ 2. TTie qppelloints/elajiR^^ jmpugnedawrddc^d 30.10.2009 passedby^^^^t^ Accident Glaims Tribund, M<OTendragarh, Distrjc^ ^e tribunal') in C!aim Case No.05/2007 ctismissing^^^t^ claimoints/cippell<3rits^h^^ 3. Rictsofthecase, jnbrief,ar^that on 05.12.2003 deceased^^^ had gone to Village Ouhukuriya, &JStrictSidhrto br^ he was c&mmg back to his vrlJc^ Magw^ bearing registration number C<7l6^057/which w^ bytheresponcJentsNoJto 3 respectivelv. The^id^J}ii^ acddent near Forest Depot, Kelharj Tum and in^^^^^^^^ deceasecl sustained mrjous injuries on K unGlergoing treatment. Thecidjmants,wh<)arefathe^ , the deceoised respectively, have chjmed com fts.42,00,000/- on the ground that tHe decease^^^ i^ member in the famiiY and they were dependent 6h his earningis, About Rs.l Ldc has been spent in itie medical tredtment of 1+ie? deceased. 4. The tribunal, erfter hearing ^ evjdenceavai|ableonrec&rd,djsmisse<ltheclarmGas®^^^o fa '•^ impugned avrord on t^ betweeri the injuries sustdiney^^^^^^^^^^^b^ .dea1+i.\. '•:.: \..': :• ,'.1;: .''.''-••^11-1''/.'^.^ • T'1' -: l^rned counsel fdr the appellan^ that cause of death df the deceas^ docij^men^s^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ InformattonAct,2005,couldnotbeexhibitedintimeasthesa^ inthepc^^ssionoftheaDpe{icmts<rl'th^^^^^^^ 3ubsefluently<indthere^orethe^ribunaldjd^^n 1 dpctor hdffcateQoricallystoitedinhiss-k^ to tfie injui^ susihain^ dismissed the dQim c^se ofthe^^^G^^^^ 6. C^ rtie otherhcuid, ie^rnedadvpcGrt®^^ haye sypDortedjfhe impuaned^^^a^ 7. We have hear^ ie^rned^^c^ award asalso Ncordsof the tribuhal below.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i 8. Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicies Act,1988 (for short the Acf) provldes 1tiat an cipplication for cQmpensation arising oyt of an accid^^ the nature specified in suh-section (1) of section t6^ persons made therein^^^^^^^^^^^ aDpiication for <;ompen ^hall, after gjying noti^ the partjes (includjng the insurer^^^^^^^^^ inquiry into theclaim or, as the case maybe,each to the provjsions of Sectjon 162 moy motke an awardj determinina the amount of cQmDensatioh whi^ persons to whom comi3ensatjc^ shall be pdicl and ih fflaking^^ CiaimsTribunaishalIspecifythecxmountwhichshaJlbepaidbytheinsurerQ^^ owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accjyent or by allor^^^^ of 1+?em,oistheGdsemaybe^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 9. Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (fbr short 'the Ru^ provides for obluihinQ of information and do<^ '^%%llliilliSIS8i%llilil^ 131' comp€ns<rt"ion under Sectro^^^^^^ 1 Tribunal shall pbtain whatev^r inform 1 fouhd necessar^ from the Po^l^^^ toawdrdtheclaimwhetherthe on the appojnted date. lO.SectiQn 14Q (1) of th^e discxblement pf ahy person h^ use ofa motorvehjcleormotoFvehicles,^ 1 the case mav be, the^^^ Jiable to pcxY cpmpensation in resDect^^^^^^^o^^^^ oiccordance with the Drovisionsof this sec 11. In view of the above, if the da^ bounden duty bf 1tie tnbunai to consider the SGme before givinQ its oiwarci, however, the same hds not been done in the instant ctise ancl therefore we have no hesitatjon TO m provisiortsofftule226oftheRules<mdSectionl68oftheAct.^ of the opinion thcrf the matte^ Tribunai. 12.InvJewQftiieabove,weallowthisappeaIinpart,set|asidetheavmrddo^^ 30.10.2009 passed in CJdim Case No.05/2007 by llhe iearned Additional Motor Mcident Claims TribunaI,^^^^^^^^M^ 1+ie matter back to the Tribunal for deGision afresh. The Tribunal shad proyide opportunjty to the partie^^^^^^t^ shall follow ^e provisions of Rule 226 in (tectdjna thed^^ parties shdil aiso be entitlecl to amend the pleadings or file documents or verify thedc^cumentsaJreadyfjled. 13. The recbrds of the Tribunal shafl be sent back forthwith. Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge