^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FC.G.) \^Q M.A. fC) N0. /2008 APPELLANTS 1. Santosh Kumar S/o. Dukhiram, aged about 43 years, Sarojni Bai W/o. Santosh Kumar, aged aboput 40 years, / 2. ^ Both R/o. Village ^ [y, Bhathalikhurd, Police Station- ^ ^... ..S--^^J^<') Jarhagaon, Tahsil- Mungeli, ^S^ ^ 's!l^^\'<)^: District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ••> -^ ^ Bodhan Lal S/o. Munna Lal Chakradhari, aged about- 39 years, Vehicle Driver and registered owner Tractor No. C.G.04 DA 3525 and Trolley No. CG04 DA 3526, R/o. Village Amakoni, Tahsil and District- Mahasamund (C.G.) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) n/'rv HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. fQ No. 1240 of2008 AppeUaats Saatosh Kumar & aaofher Versiis Respondents Bodhaxi Lal & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn & Hon'ble ShriJustice N, K. Aganval, JJ Shri Gautain Khetrapal, Advocate for fhe appellaats. None for fhe respoudent No.l, despite service ofnotice. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. ORDBR (Oral) ( Passed on this 19th day of November, 2009 ) Heard. This appeal arises finom fhe award dated 27.2.2008, passed by fhe Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal (P,T,C,), MungeU, Distdct - Bilaspur in Claim Case No.23/2007. The brief facts, ia nutsheU, are fhat accordiag to fhe appeUants, on 29.3.2007, at about 9.00 a.ni., fheir son deceased Ramesh was goiag on a trolley (tractor troUey), bearing registration No. C. G. 04-DA/3526, in order to fetch soil. At thLat tinie, due to rash aad negUgent driviag ofthe respondent No. 1 (driver as weU as owner of fhe vehicle), deceased Ramesh fell down aad was crushed by fhe tyre of fhe troUey. As a result of this accident Ramesh died on fhe spot Thus, the appellants/clamiants, betag parents filed a claim case for coinpensation. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe appeUaats submits that leamed Tribunal has failed to assess the evidences, available on record, m its right perspective. On fhe basis ofpresumption and assumption it has been held that the deceased hiaiself was negUgent aad because of his negUgeuce he could corae under the tyre of fhe toractor-troUey. The Tribunal, wifhout exainuiiag all the aspects of the raatter, has rejected the clauxt of fhe appeUaats. Thus, fhe award is not based on sound reasoniag and as such, it is not sustaiaable ia fhe eyes of law, ^.-— "I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. v> - ^. On fhe ofher haad, learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No.2 supports the award. Haviag heard learaed counsel appearing for the parties and haviag perused fhe documents appended thereto, it is evident fhat fhe findiags recorded by fhe Tribunal for rejectmg fhe claiin are not based on sound aaalysis ofthe evidences on rccord. It cannot be said only on the basis ofassumptiou aad prcsumption fhat the deceased could conie under fhe tyre of the tractor-troUey due to his negUgence. It appears that leamed Tribunal has not inarshaled the evidences ia its right perspective. Thus, fhe iinpugned award deserves to be set-aside. In view of fhe foregoing, the impugned award dated 27.2.2008 is set-aside. Siace fhe deterinination was not inade wifh regard to fhe graat of conipensation, the inatter is reniaaded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration aad detenmnation of the compensation, ia accordan.ee wifh law, on its own merits, as early as possible, preferably withia a period of four monfhs from fhe date of receipt of a copy of fhis order. The Tribunal may consider ofher evidences also, ifadduced by fhe parties, The parties are pennitted to adduce additional evidences, tf so advised. The observations, if aay, nxade hereiaabove, shall not be construed as our opiaion on merit. The appeal is aUowed to the above extent. No oider asto costs. The Registry is dirccted to send back the papers, requisitioned from. the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Thakur