1 V;i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) ^ p kTJ M.A. (a /2009 APPELLANTS : NON- CLAIMANTS \^^ ^ft-- ^-^^v ^,.-^*" . ^'~"^^.-' ft-y"" ^' ...;<^%'- ,.-<^ ••^^ '* V^ '^1' r^^~ ^^ 1. Manoj Kumar S/o Madho"'Pl-asad Dansena, Occupation : Owner of Vehicle, Residence of Village Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Madhavlal Dansena Residence of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Qh^/^^^ RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS 1. Santkunwar Wd/o Goutamlal, aged about 40 years 2. Anil Kumar S/o Goutamlal, aged about 25 years 3. Akhilesh Kumar S/o late Goutamlal, aged about 22 years 4. Rohit Kumar Dansena S/o Premsai aged about 50 years, Residence of Village Khejupali, Post Bara, Tahsil Ambabhona, District Bargarh (Orissa) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1994 RESPONDENT: NON-CLAIMANT 1 HIGH GOURT OF CMH^rT®<^RMfff BILASPUR Appellants Non-Glaimant Respondents M.A.(C)No.739of^X)9 : Manoj Kumar & Another Versus : SanUainwar & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hoff'bte Shri Justicei.M. Qucklasl & Hon'Me Shri Justjce N. K. Agarwal. Present Shri SC Verma, Advocate forttie appellants. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 31st day of Augu^, 2011) 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, against the award dated 31.03.2009, passed by the Addttlonal Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal Saldi (for short ' e Tribunat') jn claim case No. 20/99, awarding Rs. 3,20,00(V- as compensation along wtth interest @ 6 percent per annym from dateofaward, holdir^ the appellant No. 2 responsible for the accident. 2. Brief facte of the case are that, on 26.03.99, ©outamlal(since deceased) while driving the Tractor beartng regtsteation No. ORS 81^, the said Tractortumedtyrtte e®a result ofwhich he suGcumbed to the Injuries sustained by him in the sald accident. 3. The clalmants i.e. unfortunate widow and sons of the deeeased Goutamlal preferred an applk»tion before the TribunaJ under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, daiming Gompenssrtien to the tune of Rs. 7,05,0007- for the death oftheir bread-eamer in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutlny of the evidence led by the parties, the materiat available on the reeord, and submlssions ^..sy 6. 7. of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- as compensation tn favour of the claimante against tie responctent No.2. The main plea of the appellante b^orethis ©ourtisthat the appellant No. 2 was not the regtstered owner of the offendlng vehide on the date of accident. The offemUng vehtel®was transferred In his name on (®.06.99whereas the date of accklent was 26.03.99, but it appears that the vehtete v< is transferred only when NOC was Issued by the RTO aythority, and therefore, it was necessary for the Tribunat togiw Ws findlng regarding exact date of sate and on whi^ date applteatlon for NOC was applied. Proper flndings ar®n@t avallable in the impugned award, therefore, we are ef the opinion that matter requires reconsiderartion. In the resutt, we set astele the award dated 81.03.20^, jaassed by the Additional Motor Acoident Claims Tribunal Sakli, and remft the matter before concemed Tribunal yordectelon afresh. The parties shatl be provlded opportunity to adduce addiU@nal evidences in the above regaret. The matter shall be expectKed as earty as possibte preferably wfthln a period @f fwr months from the date of receipt of a copy of thls orcter. 8. Slnce the respondente are not present, notiee shatt be tssiied to the parties concemed for appearance. 9. The appeal is accordlngly aUowed. No ©rderasto co^s. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu