^\^v ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLEMR. T.P^SHARMA_& HON'BLE MR^ N.K. AGARWAL, JJ, APPELLANTS ' CLAIMANTS M.A. ( C| No. 1208 OF 2007 Punni Das Satnami, aged about 41 years Son of Shri Puran Das Satnami, Resident of Village Amlideeh, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Smt. Ramkali Bai, aged about 37 years Wife of Shri Punni Das, Resident of Village Amlideeh, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS '2. Ramman Das Satnami, aged about 55 years Son of Shri Angad Das Satnami, Resident of Village Amlideeh, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Salil Satnami, aged about 29 years Son of Shri Amar Das Satnami, Resident of Gatapar Chilfi, Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, U.T.I. Building, In front of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. 3. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ashok Swarnkar, Advocate foj- the respondents No. 1 &2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ^RAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedon 24/02/2010) The following iudgment of the Court was passed bv T.P. Sharma, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31/8/2007 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Mungeli, District Bilaspur (in short 'Claims Tribunal') in claim case No. 39/2007 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the appellants on account of death of their son Sohan Das on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not negligent in driving the vehicle. 2. Award is irapugned on the ground that Court below has not considered the evidence sufficient for drawing an inference that deceased Sohan Das died as a result of motor accident and respondent No. 2 was negligent in driving the vehicle and thereby coraraitted an illegality. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is as per pleading of the parties deceased Sohan Das son of appellants was working as labour in the tractor No. C.G. 10-A/8472 and trolley No. C.G. 10-A-8473. At the time of accident he was sitting' in the trolley and as a result of rash and negligence driving of the tractor by respondent No. 2 he fell down and crushed by the I 1 1 T~JJ tractor and trolley and died. Legal representatives i.e. mother and father have filed present petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Allegation of the appellants have been denied by the respondents No. 1 & 2 and also by respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1. & 2 have alleged in their pleadin^ that Sohan Das was not working as labour in the said tractor and trolley and was not sitting on the date of incident. Respondent No. 3 has also taken specific defence that driver was not holding proper license. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record learned Clairas Tribunal has arrived at a finding that deceased Sohan Das was sitting on the trolley but driver of the vehicle was not negligent and Sohan Das himself was negligent and he died as a result of his negligence and dismissed the Claim Petition. 5. Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants, Shri Ashok Swarnkar, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 8s 2 and Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 are heard. Award impugned and record of the Court below perused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that appellants have adduced sufficient evidence to prove that deceased Sohan Das was sitting on the trolley which was driven by the respondent No. 2 and /i'f'''ffs--^,. .^-J':. )t'. ^;. ;" ci %: ':?3BSWS,.. V ^'^^^?^ >K, \ '-f^'./ respondent No. 2 was driven the vehicle rashly and negligently but Court below has not considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 8s 2 vehemently opposed the appeal and subraits that evidence of respondent No. 2 clearly reveals that deceased Sohan Das was not working as labour in the alleged tractor and even on the date of the accident he was not sitting in the trolley therefore, respondents No. 1 8s 2 are not liable for any compensation. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. In the present case the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants prima facie shows that deceased was sitting in the trolley and he died as a result of accident on 23/5/06. Autopsy was conducted, Vehicle was seized, prosecution against respondent No. 2 has been launched under Article 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 has deposed in his evidence th^t deceased was not sitting in the tractor-trolley and has not died as a result of any accident but learned Claims Tribunal has arrived at a finding that deceased was sitting in the trolley but he was negligent. iSlilslIEE ffS^S^S^^^S'^^S^SS^^^^K :l:K:*^^^^1^^^^^1M^;:f^%??ll^;l^ ;i5;sS,B»^ 9. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered view that both the parties have not adduced proper evidence in discharging of their burden. This is a case of claira of compensation on account of death of the Sohan Das as a result of motor accident. Parties are required to adduce proper evidence and discharge their burden. 10. For the foregoing reasons, award irapugned is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Award impugned is hereby aside. Case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for providing opportunity to both the parties for adducing the evidence and to decide the case afresh. Parties shall present before the Claims Tribunal on 26/4/2010 for further proceeding of the case. No order as to costs. 11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that ClaiD-is Tribunal shall decide the claim petition in accordance with law and on its own nierits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. Sd/- T-P.Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge .<\/