1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M. A. No. Wg 200 APPELLANTS: . Auncleheen, W/o Late Kartik, CLAlMANTs Age about 61 years, Amru Das, S/o Late Kartik, Age about 34 Years, Patung Das, S/o Late Kartik, Age about 34 Years, A11 R/o Gram Vichar — pur (Thelkadih), Post: Gatapara, Thana — Khairagarh, Dist: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. Pusaou, S/o Nanuk Lal, Age i€\ about 19 Years, Occupation — «N0N~CLA1MANTs Driver, R/o Charbhanta, Thana — Khairagarh, Distt: Rajnandaon (C.G.). 2.,/Bajhareen Bai, W/o Aanand i atnami, (Owner of Tractor), R/o Charbhanta, Thana — Khairagarh, Distt: Rajnandaon (C.G.). ,3. National Insurance Company Ltd, . ‘ Kamathi Line, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ~ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AF%‘ ?( HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 718 of 2004 Appellants Auncleheen 8t. other$ Versus Respondents Pusaou 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF‘ THE MOTOR VF‘J—HCIFS ACT 1QRR DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8a Hon’ble Shri Justice N’ K. Aganval, JJ ‘ Shri Sunil Sahu Advocate for the appellants l Shn M K Bhadun Advocate for the respondents No 1 85 2 $hn Gautam Khetrapal Advocate f01 the respondent No 3 ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 27m day of August, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusl, J. Heard. This appeal arises fmm the order dated 27.4.2004, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 22/ 2003. The indisputable brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellants are legal heirs of deceased Kartik. As per the allegation on 11.2.2003, the respondent No.1 intentionally hit deceased Kartik by driving the Tractor, bearing registration No. C.G. O7-D/0122. The Tribunal without recording any evidence dismissed the claim on the ground that in fact the accident in question was not in the category of ‘accidental murder’ but it was a ‘murrler simplicitor’ and hence the claim case under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 was not maintainable. 3. Having regard to the facts situation and having perused the papers available on record, we are of the view that learned Tribunal should have recorded the complete evidence and only thereafter should have arrived at a just conclusion. Without 7. order as to costs. recording the €videi1ce, on the basis of a prelimjnaly opinion, it is not safe to decide the claim. 4. Therefom, in our opinion learned Tribunal should‘have decided the issue as to whether the accident in question was an accidental murder or a murder simplicitor. This question of fact and law should be decided only on the basis of the evidence, adduced by the parties. In View of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 27.4.2004, passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the £Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law, taking into consideration the obselvations made herein above after restoring the claim petition. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in»part to the above extent. No The parties shall be given anopportunity to adduce evidence after framing proper issues involved in the matter. For the purpose to expedite the hearing it is directed that the parties shall appear before the MACT concerned on 29th September, 2010 along with a copy of this order. 8. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned / a h‘om the Tribunal, forthwith. Xhx ’ ‘7 ~ Thakur i? sw- t f t ' I.M.Quddusi ‘ Judge /s/ iiiw ’ Sd/- N. K, Agarwal Judge