^\^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OFAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Appellants (Claimants) N^iC-" ^^ !^7^ L**' >s** ^'.»*' /e^W ,*~ 'W < .t. ^"- y:^%? ^$'il ^y ^^'7- <^/ ^•' M.A.NO. | 06) / 2004 1, Shohadri Bai W/o Late Shri Birjeram Aged about 50 years 2. Kamla Bai W/o Late Shri Birjeram, / Aged about 45 years 3. Narendra KumarS/o Late Shri / Birjeram, Aged about 23 years 4. Budhelal S/o Late Shri Birjeram, Aged f about 19years A1I R/o Village Birgahani P.O.Birgao&, Thana : Jarhagaon, Dfst : Bilaspur- (C.G.), Present AddresslGanesh Nagar Chuchuiyapara, Bflaspur-(C.G.j Versus Respondents (Non applicants) ly Naf'gndra'I^AiHar Bhojwani S/o ,''^ I^liwaf Bhojwani R/o' Sadar Bazar Bhatapara, Dist: Raipur-fC.G.) 'j''i:'l''''-u'-"»..<Hfa^i 2^/ Syrendra S/o Onkar Tiwari, Aged about |j^^28 years |Driver and owner), R/o Village ' Sanjari, Naya^on, Sinigha,Dist; j Raipur-(C.G.) MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT tfr-^""' 5^,20,000.00 IBB OIV'ISION BENCH; HON' MR, I.M. T e- t a ^AWAUQSHWE A6ASWAL.JJ^ Shohadri Bai & others Narendra Kumar A ano+her AAr. Suresh Verma. Adv. with .r. S.K. 6uha, Adv. ror 1+ie None for the i'espondents. (11th November. 2G10) 1. Heard. . 2. The aDpeiiants/ciaimants have fiied this miscellaneous aDpeal aoainst -rtie tjT^DUQusd Qwsxrd ddtsd 12.0y.2QQ4 oo^sed bv ths lecmsd 9 Additioncil •ViOtor Accident Ctaims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur (for brevity the tribunal) in Claim Case No.38/04 dismissina the claim petition of the claifflants/aDDeflonts herein. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the night of 29.7.2001 deceased lirjheram and Dilsdas were golng to Bishrampur market to sell 12 numbers of buffaloes. TTiey wsre qoina beslde the road. When they reached near Village Tekri. a motorcycle bearina reaistration number A1P23-MC-4334 comina from the sid'e of NaroyonDur and driyen bv resDondent No.2 rashiy and negjioently dashed the deceased as a resuit o* which he sustained various iniur'es on his bodv. Biriheram succumbed to the injuries sustainedl by hiffl in the said accident. The ciaimants. who are widows and children of ths deceased Biriheram. have filed the cldim Detition seekina comDensa+ion to the tune of Rs.7.20,000/- on various arounds. 4. Ths tribunal. after marshallina the evidence brouaht on record by 'ltie ismissed the claim case of the apDellants vide impuqned awcrd on that the claimants had not filed' copy of the Registration Certificate of the motorcycle bearina reaistration number MP23-MC-4334 '<? s\ 1 ' 1 that the claimants have fajled to orove that the accident has been caused by the said motorcycie. 5. We hwe heard learned counsel for the Darties and Derused the impuaned award as also recordsof the tribuna! befow. i. Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Acr'} Drovides that an aDDliccttion for comDensation arisina out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 mav be made by ifte persons made therein and Sectjori 168 provides that on receipt of an apolicotjon for comoensotion made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunai j shcll, after aiving notice of the apclication to the insurer and after' ajvinq the parties (inciuding the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of •riieicicjms and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award deter-mining the amount of compensation which appears it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom comDensation shall be paid and in making the award fhe Ciaims Tribunal shall specify tiie amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or d'river of the yehicle involved in the accident or by all or any [of them. as the case may be. 7. Ruie 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 briefly provides for obtaining 'of information and documents necessary tor awardina comDensation under Section 40. It elaborately provides that tiie Claims Tribunal shall obtmn whatever information and documents which may be found necessary frdm 1+ie Poiice, Medical and other authorities fflid proceed to award the cb(ffl whether the parties who were qiven notice, appear or not, on the appoinff'ed Section 140 (1) or tiie Act provides that where death or permanfeiht disabtement of any oerson has resutted from an accident Oirisinq out ofWe' \ ;'l use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, tiie owner of the vehicle shatl, oi* as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall jointly and severaily,] Be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablementi in accordancs witti the orovisions of this section. .3< =fai"*-d^-ti',-frT-,^-[t In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case. Ttse Tribunal shouid have foflowed the Drovisions of Rule 226 and should have summoned the records from the Police. Medical and other authorities like R.T.O. and then decide the claim oetition on the basis of eyidence and other relevant material on record in accordance with law. but the Tribuna! has not followed the provisions of Rule 226. Therefore, we are of the opinion •Hiat ttie matter requires reconsidenation at the end of the Tribunai. In view of the above, we altow this appeal in Dart, set aside the impuqned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tri'bunal shali orovide oDDortunit/ to the Dartjes to adduce further evi'dence, if any, and shail conduct an enquiry and foliow the provisions of Rule 226 in decidinq the claim Detition. ! 11. The records of the Tr'ibunal shcil be sent back forthw'1'rti. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge