IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH .A . N0. •^'^J /20oS APPELLANT ^ELAIMANT : /^,Ku. Sarswati Bai ^ ^% ..•'••f^v'f€---r ^^p^' !JT( D/o. Dulari, Caste-Sonpari R/o. Vill.Khamhariya, P.S.Seepat Tah & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^yy" '^•""' RESPONDENTS IRIVER VERSUS •^ 0^/NER 2.^ II^URER ^ Santosh Ku,.mar,S/o.Sabulal Aged about 22 years, R/o. Khamhariya, P.S.Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mohan Lal, S/o.Ganeshram Patanwar R/o. Khamhariya, P.S. Seepat Tah and District Bilaspur (C.G.) /^i'oha-* The Oriontal Insurance Co.Ltd. Opp. P.G.B.T College, Bilaspur (C.G.) Claims before the Tribunal Awarded amount Same in the present appeal. Rs. 11',50,000/- Rs. Nill MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 k ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 271 of 2006 AppeUaat Ku. Sarswati Bai Versus Respondents Saatosh Kumar & ofhers APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLESACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aguihotri Ss Hoa'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri PrafuU Bharat, Advocate for fhe appellant, None for fhe respondents No.l & 2, despite service ofaotice. Shri Raj Awasttu, Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. ^ ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 20th day of November, 2009) Per Satish K. Agnihotri J. Heard. 1. This appeal anses fi?om the award dated 28.1.2004 passed by fhe Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 17/2002 as weU as the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by fhe Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur ia M.J.C. No. 68/2004,. 2. The brieffacts, iu nutsheU, are that according to the appeUant, on 8.3.1998, at about 8.00 a.m., she along with ofher labourers was going on a troUey (tractor troUey), bearing registration No. M. P. 26/E-0999. At that tmie, near Deur-nala, due to rash and negUgent drivuig ofthe respondent No.l^river ofthe vehicle), fhe troUey tumed topsy-turvy, as /sr^-esult of fhis accident, the appeUant received grievous injliries. Thus, the appeUant/cIaimant filed a claiTn case for conipensation. 3. Leamed counsel appeanng for the appeUant subuuts that learaed Tribuiial has dismissed fhe claun of the appeUaat/claunant by impugned award dated 28.1.2004 on the ground that the ~ appellant/claunant has faUed to produce witoesses. He subiaits fhat fhe appeUaat/clamiarit could not producc the witnesses in support of her case on account of the fact that her leflt leg was iiuputed, thus it became difi&cult for her to luove and coutact relevant persons, wifhia reasonable tuae. —2-- 4 . Thereafter, the appellaut filed aa application uader Order 9 Rule 9 aad 13 read with Sectlon 151 of fhe Code of Civfl Procedure for restoration of fhe clauu case and its decision on. merit. That application has been dismissed by fhe Additional District Judge by order dated 16.3.2005. Leamed counsel subxaits tbat the Tribuiial has not afforded opportuiuty of hearing and cursorily dismissed the claira case. 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supports the award as weU as the impugned order dated 16.3.2005 passed in M.J.C. No. 68/2004. 6. Havnag heard leamed counsel appearmg for fhe parties and haviag perused fhe documents appended fhereto, we are of the opiruon fhat in the uiterest ofjustice it is expedient that one niore opporttmity may be granted to the appeUaitt/claimant to get her witaesses examined aud contest the niatter before the Tribunal, in accordance wifh law. 7. In view offhe foregoing, fhe impugned award dated 28.1.2004 as weU as ftie order dated 16.3.2005 are set-aside. The inatter is reniauded back to the Tnbunal for a Qssb consideration aad detemunation of the coinpensation, in accordauce wifh law, on its own iiierits, as early as possible. 8. The appeUaat/claunaat niay present herself along with her witnesses for examinatiou on 5th Jaauary, 2010 before fhe Tribunal. 9. The parties are pennitted to adduce additional evidcnces, if so advised. 10. The Tribuital inay consider other evidences also, ifadduced by the parties. 11. The observations, if aay, raade hereiaabove, shaU not be construed as our opiaion on mierit. 12. The appeal is aUowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 13. The Registay is directEd to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forfhwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- f.K. Agrawal Judge KVR