i^'Si1 ^^ s:''-' S!OI? Bm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. [ -f $8 OF 2007 APPELLANTS/ CLAIMANTS ^ ^^3 ^vs" '^y •-•^'^ f^ •'' ^"^' ..&" ;..*!•• ^k Durpati, Widow of Late Shri Bahrtaram, aged about 38 years. 2. Nandlal, S/o Prabhu Chandra, aged about 75 years. 3. Netram, S/o Late Shri Bahrtaram, aged about 26 years. Ku. Kirtan Bai, D/o Late Shri Bahrtaram, aged about 21 years. 'Keshav Prasad, S/o Late Shri Bahrtaram, aged about 18 years. All R/o Village Jhalraunda, Police Station Baradwar, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Ajay Kumar Chandra, S/o Bhuvanlal, R/o Village Ragja, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Driver KBil^qr^ Suresh Kumar Q'riplani,) ,S/o_ Manoh'ar Lal (TriptajnQ'^'R/o Near Ashok T^Iae's7~Station Road, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (CG). Owner ^-S. Branch/Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office Priyadarshini Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District BUaspur (CG). Insurer MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Satish K. Aanihotri & Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Misc. Appeal (Ct No.1458 of 2007 Appellants Respohdents Versus Durpati and others Ajay Kumar Chandra and othere. Shri H.S. Patel, leamed counsel for the appellants. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Shri Avinash Chandra Sahu, counsel Tor respondent No.3. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Veh'rcte Act, 1988. ORAL ORDER (11.01.2010) Per Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Heard. (2) This appeal arises from the award dated 31.1 0.2(X)7, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir- Champa in Motor Accident Claim Case No.22/^)07 vrtiereby the claim of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the claimants have Tailed to prove that the Mahindra P'lckup Van bearing r^istration No.CG-11 -A-5059 was involved in the accident. (3) On perusat of the records produced before us, it ai^ears that according to the final report filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, the Mahindra Pickup van bearing registrertion No.CG- 11-A-5059 was seized, as the said vehicle was involved in the accident with Motor Cycle bearii^ r^istration No. M.P.-2S-KC-5448, vrtiich resulted in death of one Bahrtaram. It appears that the learned Tribunal has decided the case solely on the basis of the d^>os'rtion of Balram Chandra wrtiich may not be trustworthy, as he had nd lodged any FIR earlier. Thus, we are of the considered view that the claim case has not been properiy examined from all angles; as according to the final repwt frted before the Add'rtional Ghief Judtoial Magistrsfte, the offending vehicle Mahindra P'lckup Van was involved in the accident -A '%-• and the same has been seized by the polfoe on the charges of causing accidenttothe Motor Cycle bearing registration No. M.P.-26-KC-5448. (4) Accordingly, the impi^ned award dated 31.10.2007 is set aside and the matter is rem'rtted back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh. The Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the claim case of the appellants afresh, in accordance with law, on tts own merrts.as eariy as possibte, preTerablywithin a period ofthree months Trom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (5) The parties are permitted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. (6) The obsenation, if any, made hereinaboye, shall not be construed as our opinion on merit. (7) The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order as tp costs. (8) The R^fistry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the tribunal, Torthwith. Sd/- / prashant Kumar Mishra Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Judge Km ^a^issasasssas^^b^