wu ywwnkw WV” n“? FEE- 1\IE a INTHEH APPELIANT S CLAIMANTS REsPONDENTS NON-APPL ICANTS ”z, : /K’Ramsewak Ram s/o' somaru Ram, age 45 years. gant. Kunti Devi w/c Late Sikandar Ram, age 19 years. (3/.$nt. sohani w/o shri Ramsewak Ram.age 43 years, /All by caste—Korwa, r/o village] 3hitghara (Gwasi) Tehsil ‘L Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, C.G. ‘ VERSU ant. Padmawati Devi w/o gmi Lalbhand Kashyap, r/o village ka Patrapali, Airibikapur, i Distt. $1rguja, C.G. g (0mm) /2/. Fagunath Ram @ Faguram s/o fr Lacchuram, Occupation-Driver, 'age 23 years, r/o village Budhadand, Tehsil Bggicha, Distt. Jashpun, C.G. (DRIVEg) 7 v 1 ‘ The oriental Insurance Company ; Lmitedf Branch Office Ambika- ’ pyr, District Surguja. CoG. ,-'L9cal 0f£ice Raigarh, C.G. ’ (ENsURER) ‘ p T 10,oo,ooo/- - ONLY./ “ ’ /Béing §grieved with the impugn d award dated 193.2004 passedrin M.A.c.c. No. 19/200 rby the Ilnd Motor /A}eident Claims Tribunal,(F.T. .1)’ District Jashpur, C.G. , the appellants named abcve beg to prea‘fer this memo of appeal on the mllowing facts and grounds amongst others. OR VEHICLES ACT. contd. . 2 COURT OF CWIATTI M.A. NO./53i K {2004 / q PPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE A ‘ 1". , APPEAL VALUED lN SUM OF RS. COURT FEES PAID RS. l i o H‘\ / S W € ’ O HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH. BILASPUR G CORAM: Hon’ble $hri LM. Quddusi, 8: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. MA. N9. 53'! of 2904 APPELLANTS Ramsewak Ram and others. Versus RESPQNDENTS ’ Smt. Padmawati Devi and ethera V; Appearance: = Shri Lokesh Singh, counsel for respondent No.1‘ Shri A.K. Atha!ey, counsel for respondent Ne.3. $hri A.K. Prasa6, counsel for ihe appeHants. ORAL ORDER ( ZZIOZI’ZO‘l 1) Following oral order of the Ceurt was passed by I. M. Qudclusi, J. This appeal has been filed by claimant's against the impugned erder dated 19/03/2004 passed by the ll Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T,C.), Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No. 19/2002 dismissing the claim of the claimants. (2) The brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 19/1 1/2000 deceased Sikandarram who was working as coolie sat in tractor bearing registration No. MP. 27-8/5565 and the tractor was being driven by non-applicant No.2 Faguram. Due to rash and negligent driving. and jerk of the tractor Sikandarram felt down from the tractor and he received injuries. He wasvhrought to his honse in the tractor and while making arrangements for taking him to the Hospital he died, Deceased was aged about 22 years. He used to earn Rs.2000/- per month by doing agricultural work and labour work. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.18,60,000/-. @ (3) One of the claimant is the widow of the deceased namely Smt. Kunti Devi who has shown her age as 19 years m the post mortem report the age of the deceased hae been shown as 22 years, therefor it cannot be said that the deceased was not married. in the evidence iso it has come that he was married, owever i the witnesses have given the statement contrar to the same. it can not be iieved in view of the fact that one of the ciaimant‘ie widow of the deceased. ‘ , (4) Regarding the traveling of the dcease by the tractor sitting on the tractor it has‘come in the evidence that he was sing on the ett side of the driver on the driving seat. it has aiso come in the statemen of Bifaiya Ram Sfo Dudharam that on the left side of the driver dceased Sikandar was sitting and on the right side of the diver another person namely Prat m was sitting. Therefore it appears that both shared the seat of the driver to some extent. lt has also come that some rsons were sitting inside the trolley atched with the tractor, This witness has also stated that e driver had driven the vehioie rashly and negligently but the ' learned claims Tribunal has given the tiding contrary to the evidence available on record and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the findings given by the claims Tribunal is pervee. (5) in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances. the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the claims Tribunal. (6) ln view of the above discussions. the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. (Z7) Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, fite documents or to get the e a h f y be . ed tti i t e r ba Ra pe ta th n rs documents verified etc. and thereafter dedskm shaH be taken afresh bv 4 the Claims Tribunal, ._ }/ (8) The parties shaH appear before the Claims Tribunal on 05’“ April, 201 1. The Lower Court Record shall be send back without further delay, X (9)We to costs. l 5w. 1e , Sd/— 1"} " I.M.Quddusi i Prashant Kumar Mishra ‘ ‘ Judge M Judge o l