t (3 u' IN 'IHE H01M J^LE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) M. A. f C ) N0. ^.{^ OF 2010 (D.B.)OJVJ|JQ^ g ^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^^ ^^:y ^^ l^"" RESPONDENTS : NON-CLAIMANTS 3.. Smt. Sita Devi Kodopi W/o. Late Rajkumar Kodopi aged about 39 years, Uma Shankar Kodopi S/o. Late Rajkumar Kodopi aged about 20 years, Sanjay kumar Kodopi S/o. Late Rajkumar Kodopi aged about 18 years, Smt. Rambati Kodopi W/o. Shobhrai Kodopi aged about 70 years, All are Residence of Village Bade Gudera, Thana Kunwakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ramkumar Nag S/o. Motiram Nag, aged about 32 years Residence of Mailawada Thana Kunwakonda District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle ) Motiram Nag S/o. Lalu, aged about 58 years, Residence of Village Mailawada Thana Kunwakonda District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anupama Chowk Branch Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 2. 3. /^ ^ MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 f2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 r^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATH80ARH. BILA8PVR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDU8I fia HON*BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M.A(CI. Wo. 947 OF 2010 Vs. MISC. APPBAL U/8 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Pravia Kuxuiar Tulsyan, coimsel for the appeUante, Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondente 3. ORDER (ORALI (02.12.2010) Per I.M. OUDDU8I. J 1. This is aa adiaitted appeal. Rec^ords of fhe Tribunal are already avaUable. Therefore wifh fhe coiisent af parties the matter has been heard finally. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe clamiaats ^amst fhe inipugaed award dated 16.08,2010 passed by fhe Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, Soufh Bastar, Dantewada (C.G) ioi Claun Case No.92/2009 disniissiag the claim appUcatioii filed by fhe claiaiants, 3. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version of the claimants are fhat on 25.06.2009 at about 8,00 p.m., deceased Rajkumar Kodopi alongwifh Narsiagh Yadav (A.W.2) was coiniiig on Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.18-B/5097 fipom Dao^tewada to Bade Gudra. At that time, one Tractor bearing Regn.No. C.G. 18-G/0155 which was bemg driven by respondent no. 1, APPELLANT Smt. Sita Devi Kodopi aad 3 others RB8PONDBNT8 Ramkumar Nag aad ofhers f^^. 4. rashly and negl^genfty, dashed the Motorcycle of Rajkiimar due to which Rajkumar aad Narsiagh Yadav feU down alongwiffa Motortcycle. Rajkumar received senous mjuries on head, right leg aad ofher parts of the body aad he was brought to fhe Hospital at Kuakonda where the Doctors lookmg to fhe gravity of injuries, rcferred him to Maharani Hospital Jagdalpiir aad there fhe deceased died oai 26.6.2009 during fhe course of treatment The claimants beiag legal heirs as also dependents of fhe deceased, filed clafcm petition claiming to fhe tune of Rs,23,.90,000/~ lakhs on various heads. The Clatms Tribunal has fraixied fhe issues as to whether the driver of fhe Tmctor bearing Regn. No. C.G. 18-ZD/0155 whUe driving the said vehicle rashly aad negUgenfly commiftted fhe accident causiag deafh of Rajkumar Kodopi; whefher fhe driver of fhe Tractor was having vaUd and eflTective driviag Ucense on fhe date ofaccident; whether there was any breach of insuraace poUcy conditions and whether fhe claimaats are entifled to get Rs.23,90,000/- fiom the noa- appUcants as compensation and any other relief(s). However, the Tribunal did not frome the issue as to whefher the Tractor No. C.G. 18-ZD/0155 was involved in fhe accident or not 5. Further we have perused the wntten statement of fhe owiier of fhe Tractor, ia which it has been admitted m additional plea No. 1 fhat fhe accident ia question had occiirred due to caUousness of the driver of fhe inotorcycle No. C.G.18- B/5097, naaiely Rajkum.ar Kodopi, which shows fhat the owner aad driver have admitted the accident Fiirther m Column-13 offhe claioi petition, the mention ofthe offendmg vehicle ffaat is the Tractor No.C.G,18/G-0155 against which, fhe niotorcycle of fhe deceased which was said to have dashed, hos been admitted in written statement filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle fhat is Tractor, Further fhe Tribunal has not considered the statements of eye-witaesses fhat is A»W.4namely Pawan Kumar Nag who has stated in his exarmnation-ia-chief fhat the accident was c^xiimitted by ffae driver of the Tractor C.G. 18-0/0155 which belonged to Motuiam Nag and at tihie tixne ofaccident, his son Ram Kumar Nag was driviag fhe Tractor and the deceased Rajkumar and a piUion rider namely Narsiag Yadav were goiag on the inotorcycle. lu cross-exaimnation, he had denied fhe suggestion made on behalf of the Insurance Company fhat he has not seen the accident and admitted fhat fihe driver of the Tractor Rainkuinar N^ who was driviag the vehicle emd he had seen the iacident also. The owner had not chaUeBged fhe mvolvement ofthe Tractor in. fhe cross-exainmation. 6. In fhe cross exammation, on a suggestion made on behalfof fhe iasiirarice Compaay to Narsiagh Yadav (A.W,2), admission has been inade fhat fhe accident has taken place wifh aa unknown teactor and he along-wifh claimants have falsely impUcated fhe Tractor of Motiram ia the accideiit, wfaich appears to be doubtful. However, the widow of fhe deceased Smt Sikta Devi (A.W.l) denied the said suggestion in the cross-examdination. 7. In the written statement of the msuraace compaay ia Para-9 it has been stated that m alteraative, fhe driver of fhe (^) motorcycle was not haviag a valid acd effective drivizig Iteense aad fhe deceased himself coBided fhe motorcycle wifh the Tractor by driviag rashly and negUgently aad committed ffaie accident which was due to his carelessness. 08. In view of the above, we are of fhe opmion fhat the matter requires reconsideration at fhe end of the Tribuaal conceraed. Thereforc, we set aside fhe mipugned award dated 16*08.2010 aad remit fhe matter back to fhe MACT concemed. The Tribunal shall consider fhe written statements of fhe aon- appUcants and shall decide as to whefher aa additioaal isaue is Uable to be fi^anied regardiag fhe iavolveiaent of tfae Tractor ia quesfion. The parties shall also be allowed to adduce further evidence, amend fheir plea<dmgs or file documents aod get fhe docuinents verified etc., aad fhereafter fhe claioi case shall be decided afresh as expeditiously as possible, The pardes shall appear before titie Tribunal concenied on 07th of Pebruarv, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back to the Tdbunal, 09. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed. No order as to cos^s). Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge Rao