DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDD SI & ’ HON’BLE PRASHANT K AR MISHRA, JJ, M. MC) No. 96 om 2005 l § i Vs. RESPONDENTS - 1. Manhaxan Prasad M1shra, s/o Ganga Prasad Mlshxa aged about 44 years r/o Shakulpara, Nawagarh PS Nawagarh Tahml Bemetara Dlstnct Durg(C G) ‘2. Jeevan Suljeet Si11ghi~ Busf Semce R/o -Be’metéra; Prop Distt: Shn Durg(C.G). '3. The Oriental Insurance Company_ VLimite-d, Malviya Nagar, Chowk, Durg, Ta‘hsil 6:. Distt. ‘Durg (CG). ' MISCELLANEOUS AP?EAL UIS 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 k"i PER ; Mr. Raj Khmer Pah‘, counsel for the applant. Mr. Raja Shanna; counsel for respOndents’ 1 85 2 jMrs China Shi‘iVastava, counsel for respondent no.3. 9 « l l l x v i l y per LM. QUDDUSI, J, ORDER (ORAL 2.01.1 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties > i’l‘his s appeal has been Eled’ by the Claimant’agaiust impugned .order dated 13 7 2005 passed by Addl Motor Acoldent r Clmms Tnbunal Bemetara, Dlstt Durg (C G) 1n Clalm Case ' , A No 62/2004 rejechng the clmm of the appellant as not ‘ ‘ HIGH COURT OF-CHHATTISG ? VBILASPUR APAANCE el . (120 ) ) r 2. ’ ’ APPELLANT Anjor Bai Gitwar Annat, R/o Nawagarh Rice Mill RS Bametara,’ Disté: Anhat, w/o Late Shn' Aged’about: 42 years, Darripara, Beside the Nawagarh Tahsil Durg (C. G) " l maintainable u/s 166 of the Mdto Vehicles Act on the ground that the bus was at stationery condition Whernthe ! §1ief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that on 21.08.2003, deceased Shivendra Knmar with his‘ friends and others were traveling 1n the odendmg Bus havmg Regn No CGO4/ZA—O229 from Nawagarh to go to Dhobnlkala and Medhe.’ When the Bus reached Hardi, some passengers started getting down the bus. .Respondent no.1 Manharan Prasad Mishla who was the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, stopped the vehicle under the High Tension'Electric Wire Some of the passengers who got down the bus were unloadmg their luggage from the top of the Bus 'A passenger was havmg about 20 ft. long TV Antenna Rod on the top of the Bus and when he was unloading it, ‘unfor’umately it touched the high tension electric Wire and it . also touched the deceased who was standing near door of the bus, as a result ofwhich, he died of electrocution. The bus was plying according to its permit and on the way the bus stopped for getting down some of the passengers and for unloadlng thelr luggage and other goods, as such 1t cannot be said that the Bus was not m use and therefore 1t cannot be said that the cla1m 11/ s 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. So far as the deceased is \ ‘concerned 1f he was passenger of the bus or he completed his Journey and got down the bus and then the acc1dent had ' taken place 1n that case his capac1ty would be of thud party and therefore, the matter 1s to be dec1ded on merits about accident took place. the negligence of the driver an the entitlement of d compensation or its quantum. I 5. Here it is pertinent to mention that section 122 of the Motor r“ "’\/ Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with “leaving vehicle in dangerous position”. It provides that no person in chaxge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicile or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on an}; public place in such a position or in such a condition or in Such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger,f obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. ; 6. The Incharge or Driver of the Vehicle kept a pipe of 20 ft. long over the bus top and stopped the Bus under the High Tension Wire where while unloading such pipe it came'in Contact with the H.T. Wire. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have also considered as to whether there v was negligence on the part of Incharge/Driver of the said motor vehicle. In view of the above, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2005 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision ahesh. Needless to mention fthat the patties shall be given opportunity to amend pleadings, adduce further evidence, if any, hie documents or get the documents verihed etc. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, shall also consider as to whether there was . negligence on the part of Incharge/Driver of the odending Bus. The concerned Insurance Company shall also be allowed tosmove an application u/ s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such an application is movJd, the same shall be decided on its merits by the Tribunal. The Iecords of the Tribunal shall be sent back Without further delay. Sdl- LM-Quddusi ‘ Judge Sd/- \ Prashant Kumar Mishra 1‘ ‘ Judge