^l BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M .A. fC) N0. /4f ^? OF 2009 APPELLANTus^' '^^" jyhion 8<s^fii Meena Kumari Gandharva, W/o Prahlad Gandharva, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Laxmi Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, P.5.- Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^' ^•"° RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering Department, Civil Line, Near Thana, Crime Branch Office, Link Road, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL Rs.5,00,000/- Nil Rs.5,00,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 < HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA (G). No. 1489 of 2089 APPELLANT : Meena Kumari Gandharva. RESPONDENT Versus Sub DMstonal Oflieer and another. MOTOR VEHtCLES JM3T. 1888 1730FTHE Division Bench: Hon'bte Shri LM. Quddusi& Hon'bte Shri N.K. AflarwiiQj. Presenfc Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel tbr the appeHant. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Generatwith Shri Vlnod Deshmukh, counsel for the respondents. ORALORD6R (Passed on 1st day ofSeptember, 2<MO) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed againsttheawafdclated 07-10^2009 passed by Second Addittonal Motor Acddent Glaims TribuRal, Bitaspur (for short the Tribunal') in daim case No.109/2008 dismiasing the clalm of the appetlant on the ground that the driver of Uie vehjde was not made a pariy. 3. In the impugned award it has not been rBerrtloned by the Tribunal that at any point of time, any opportunity was given to the ctaimant to imptead the drwer as party. The vehicte by whlch the accident had taken place, betongs to the State Govemment and it te allegect that its officer Shri Tamaskar who was posted as Sub DMsional Officer, P.H.E., Ktaspur was clriving ttie vehtele. The Bub Divisional Officer by designation is oppostte party No.1. 4. Considering the fects and circunwtanees of the case, we are of the opinfon that the matter requires reconsicteration by th®Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal to part and set s®ldethe ijnpugned order passed by the tearned Tribunal. We remit ttie matker to ttie teamed Tribunal for ctecision afresh. The appeltant shaU be aitewed to imptead the driver of the vehicte as non-applicant i.e. who was driving ^fXvr the vehicte and atso the driv®rof the vehtete namely Sftri Tamaskar, S.D.O and Shri Sattu respecth/ely as respondents/non-applicants. 5. Needtess to mention that the non-applteants shatl be previcted opportunity to fite their written statements aiad the partfes shall be altowed to adduce their evldence afresh. ^l 1Sd/-~- §^/. N.K.Agrawal I.M.Quddusi | Judge Judge