^;'::^:-1:,-"^^'!' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI&GARH AT ; BILASPUR (C.G.) l 'i' M.A.(C)NO.)^^ of 2010; r^^ APPELLANT ^p^'y QSl^- '..^- ." _:^^- RESPONDENTS Aajuram, S/o. Jagdish Ram Verma,: aged about 46 years, R/o Village- Kukardi, P.S.- Raipur(C.G.) Kukardi, P.S.-Balodabazar, District- ^••^". (OWNER) VERSUS 5 :1 5 2. ^> 3. Ku. Suman, D/o Rann^rasgd: Yadiav, aged about 10 years, Minor though legal guardian Father Ramprasad, S/o Sadhram, ^aste-Rout, R/o Village-Bhalukona, P.S.-Kasdol, District-Raipur(C.G.) (qLAIEVIANT) 1 ' ; - Nitesh Kumar, S/o R^ghUpiath'ftana, aged about 35 yeafe; 'Gaste-M^rath'i; R/o Sawangi, P.S.-Athane, District- Baitul(M.P.) .' p-; '• :i (Driver, Truck No. C.G. 04 ZC-1544) (DRIVER) The New India Insufance ©oh-ipahy Limited, Office- IB.R.-tt,'1;iRl[]).A. Building, Bajrang Market,^^;E.. Road, Raipur, District Raipur(0';(3';) ' :1 ! ;1 (Insurer, Truck No. C.G. 04 ZC 1544) •V^',P; ll i- ;i ,-i L. • !L;li! i "!i •U i : CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : Rs;4,3l?,0 AWARD AMOUNT : Rs;17,1007-1 VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs. 17,1QO/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S, 173 OF THE IVSQTOR VEHICLEACT.1988 ;;; ir> mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Pr<ashant Kumar Mishra Civil Revision No. 30/2010 APPLICANT : Aajuram RESPONDENTS : Versus Smt. Bed Bai & others Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICANT Civil Revision No. 31/2010 : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Maan Bai & others Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Deepak Oupta, counsel for fespondentNo.3. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF THE CIVILPROCEDURE APPLICANT OvU Revision No. 32/2010 : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Suresh Kumar & others Appearanee: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF THE CIYILPROCEDURE APPELLANT M.A.fONo. 747/2009 : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Smfc Puni Bai Yadav & others Apoearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondentNo.3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 M.A.fONo. 750/2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS : Aajuram Versus Smt. Puni Bai & others Aopearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for theappellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondentNo.3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 M.A.fONo. 125/2010 APPELLANT : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Ku. Chandrakala & others Aooearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. -3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 M.A.fONo. 126/2010 APPELLANT : Aajuram RESPONDENTS : Versus Fuleshwari Bai & others Aooearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 APPELLANT M.A.fONo. 127/2010 : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Ku. Sato Bai & others ADDearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondentNo.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 M.A.fONo. 128/2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS : Aajuram Versus Smt Chak Bai & others Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. 'u- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 M.A.fONo. 129/2010 APPELLANT : Aajuram Versus RESPONDENTS : Ku. Suman & others Appearance: Shri Ooutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ORALORDER (07.07.2010) With the consent ofleamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This batch of three civil revisions and seven miscellaneous appeals have been preferred by the owner ofmotor vehicle bearing no.C.G.04ZCl544. 3. The claimants in all the claim petitions have preferred the claim on account of injury suflfered by them on account of motor accident on 24/05/05. 4. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the respondent Nitesh Kumar was the driver and appellant Aajuram vvas the owner of truck bearing No. C.G. 04 2,C 1544. In his reply before claims tribunal the owner stated that though he is the owner of vehicle bearing No.1544, Ae accident has not taken place involving liis f- M 0 vehicle. In additional statement it was stated fhat from the documents submitted by the claimant himself it would appear that the accident had taken place involving truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1541. Further, it was the stand ofthe appellanVowner that ifit is found that driver Nitesh was driving the vehicle, the said driver being in possession of valid driving vehicle, the Insurance Company will be responsible for the accident. 5. The Insurance Company also took this stand tliat the accident has taken place involving the truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1541, however it was their stand that driver was not having valid driving license. 6. The claims tribunal framed specific issue No.l to detennine as to whether the accident had taken place involving truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1544 or truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1541. After a detailed discussion in pamgraph 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned award, the claims tribunal has recorded the fmding that truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1544 was not involved in the accident and it was truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1541 which was involved in the accident. 7. Admittedly the tribunal has not made any effort to ascertain as to who are the owner, driver and insurer ofvehicle bearing No.1541. Leamed counsel for the claimant has stated that from the oral evidence on record it is proved that the appellant is also the owner of truck bearing No. 1541, however in the absence ofany documentary b \}^ ^^' evidence, the argument raised by the leamed counsel for the claimant cannot be accepted at this stage. The claims tribunal has also cursorily observed that the appellant is the owner of truck bearing No. 1541, however that observation or fmding is based on oral statement of Bedbai (AW-1) and Sukcharan (AW-2). The finding on issue No. 4 has been recorded only in 5/6 lines which appears to be without any documentary foundation. 8. Along with the memo of appeal the counsel for the appellant has submitted a certificate of registration issued by the registering authority of vehicle bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC 1541. From this document it appears that some other person is the registered owner of the vehicle. Though this document is xerox copy yet since fmding of the tribunal is also based on oral evidence, document assumes significance. 9. In the event some other persons is found to be the owner of vehicle No. 1541, then the question would be who is the driver and insurer of the said vehicle and as to from whom claimant would ultimately recover the amount. 10. In the opinion ofthis court, the leamed tribunal should have allowed parties to place on record all documentary and other evidence with regard to the ownership ofvehicle bearing No. 1541 so that the claimants are not put to trouble at the time of realization of ^ the amount from the tme owner or insurer of the vehicle.In the '-{' \y interest of justice and in the interest of the parties to the claim petition, it would be in the fitness ofthings to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter to the claims tribunal by giving a chance to all the contesting parties to plead and prove their respective cases about owner of vehicle No. 1541 and then pass an award in accordance with the law, so that the claimant would ultimately be able to recover the amount from the owner and insurer ofthe vehicle which was involved in the accident. 11. With the above observation all the civil revisions and misc. appeals are allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The claims tribunal shall complete the enquiiy as eariy as possible and preferably within a period ofsix months. 12. Since the award has been set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh trial. Claimant shall submit security before claims tribunal with an undertaking that in the event it is found that the appellant was not the owner ofvehicle No. 1541, they shall refiind the amount which they have already withdrawn, to tiie appellant, Aajuram. 13. A copy of this order be placed on the record of connected revisions and appeals. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^A