^^ r^ IN THE HON7BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.V MISC.APPEAL fC) NO.f^S^OF 2009 APPELLANTS : 1. CLAIMANT N0.2 & 3 ^•s^ ,.. .y^ ^•" -L.»-^"...•^ -"\ 2. s^" RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTNO.l NON-APPLICANTS ^ C^N.^(O Smt. Pramila Bai wife of Late Bhagirathi @ Bhagi Satnami; aged about 32 years; Kishan Son of Late Bhagirathi @ Bhagi Satnami; aged about 13 years, 'MINOR', through natural guardian mother Smt. Pramila Bai Wife of Late Bhagirathi @ Bhagi Satnami; Both resident at present in Village Jangalpur, Police Station Pandatarayee; Tahsil Pandariya; DistrictKawardha (C.G.). VERSUS Tijiya Bai Wifeof Punau Das Satnami; aged about 61 years, resident of Village Vicharpur, Police Station and Tahsil Khairagarh; District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Purushottam @ Musku Son of Chinta Ram Verma, aged about 26 years; "DRIVER". Dharmendra Verma Son of Anand Ram Verma; "TRACTOR OWNER". ^SBINg^ Both resident of Village Vicharpur, Police Station and Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon; Police Station, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 \ ^asff^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. ^?J Appellants Claimant No.2 & 3 Respondents M.A.(C)No.1567 of 2009 Smt. Pramila Bai and Another Versus Tijiya Bai and Others [Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] Present: - Shri R. N.Jha,counsel forthe appellant. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. Shri H. P. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 03ra dayof May,2011) Per I.M.QUDDUSi 1. This appeal has been filed by the Claimant No.1 & 2, widow and son of the deceased respectively against the impugned award dated 27-10-2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Case No.29/2008, whereby the claim petition was dismissedon the ground that they are not the widow and son of the deceased. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-02-2008 at about 12 Noon, while the deceased-Bhagirathi was sitting nearby the shop of Lakhan Verma at Village Vicharpur, suddenly, the non-applicantNo.1, while driving the Tractor bearing Registration No.CG-07-N-341 in a rash and negligent manner, crushed the deceased-Bhagirathi from front side of the offending vehicle and entered into the shop of Lakhan Verma. As a result of accident, Bhagirathi died on the spot. The deceased was working as a Carpenter and earning Rs.150/- per day. The non- M'm ^ ^^^:^^^ •UMB '^a^w^^w iSSWS ^isastssM :iB18KI :'^?&^;^-w^^^^ S^SSIiSjSIIS §— '.sfisai ^iKSSSI ^ssssis ^•ISSSSS ^iiSSSiS ^&S^M j.t isgyi "SISI^f ^!iSSiS^& ^SffiS?!^ ^^j^"^^'^ !li '^iKSSSX, '•py :^^j^' tl) ~^^M^:- SS' -'.'S M^' ^i^ ^/^^sf^- ^ S ^' ^ ^^ -%:'- "%' i ^SS^ I 'ji ^ •^.^/!/ '^.. ''yy ^ applicant No.2 was the registered owner of the vehicle and Non-applicant No.3 was the insurer. 3. Vide Claim Case No.29/2008, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 15,50,0007- under various heads. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that as the Claimants No.2 & 3 failed to prove that they are the wife and the son of the deceased-Bhagirathi, hence, both of them are not entitled for compensation and as far as Claimant No.l-Tijiya Bai is concerned, she is entitled for an award of compensation of Rs.82,5007- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum under various heads. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants No.2 & 3-Smt. Pramila Bai and Kishan have filed this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. 6. Inour opinion, rejection of claim petition preferred by the Claimants No.2 & 3 on the ground that they are not th^ widow and the son of the deceased respectively, would not suffice the purpose. If claimants have come before the Court or the Tribunal by committing the fraud, appropriate action should be taken against them. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry into the matter to ascertain the truth and then only, findings should have been given. 7. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the Tribunal should adopt procedure to conduct an enquiry and Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, also provides the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and its duty to conduct the enquiry. ::^^.c;y^.^. "ISSfi- 3iSSi 'sssis:; '^VW^B. ;¥ISS88B •8 ^lgg® •1SSIS8S ^ili^% '@SSSi ^issss ^^l^^li .^.^ftttilW:@ •'iSBS ^^SSSiS sssaSi •IIBSI :ajf%rfi ^aiSa .^^t^^^^l'' ::^tK:^^ ^^»^^;l:y.; ^SSK :Iiitt Bl '^::\':- ®i^ -^, ^ ^.:---:^ r< II ^^^^^ ^ v^ ^y^-^^' Tumane 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 27-10-2009 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal to conduct thorough enquiry, if required, police verification report should also be obtained and thereafter, decision shall be made afresh. The widow/mother of the deceased should also be summoned before the Tribunal to give her statement, who was a claimant before the Tribunal and had not appeared in the witness box and thereafter only findings shall be given on the basis of the enquiry and if it is found that fraud has been committed, appropriate action would be taken against the erring persons. No order as to costs. 9. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidencein support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 10. If the amount of compensation is already in deposit, the same shall be kept in the fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of six months extendable from time to time till the decision of the claim petition afresh. However, in case, amount of the compensation or any part thereof has been paid to the claimant No-1-Tijiya Bai, the same shall not be recovered from her till fresh decision is made. 11. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. 12. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned cn 15 June, 2011 — Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^S^SM '^^^v^ ^iKM ^SS'^K. "^s->:y:''s^ ^^;^;^: i^Ji'K^ ^"