HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8CUUUI, BU.A8PUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI B8 HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MIKHRA, JJ, M. A. No. 1007 of 2005 KJ\ APPEARAMCE: Mr. Pawaa Kesarwani, counsel for the appellaat in M.A.No. 1007/2005. Mrs. Som ShuMa Sarkar, counsel for the appellaat in M.A. No.77 of2006. Mr. P. P. Sahu, counsel for respondents in bofh the appeals. Pei I.M. OUDDU8I. J. ORDBRJORAiy (20.04.2011) 1. These are the two appcals arising out ofthe same accident, but filed against two dififcrent awards passed by the diBFerent MACTs giving coutraiy findiags regarding the fact of ." accident 2. P.1nimant of Claun Case No. 16/2004 namefy Deepankar Mandal who was injured in the accident in^ question filed M.A. No.77/2004 for enliaaceinent of the amoiuit of coinpcnsation whereas the claiinant of Claim Petition 1APPELLABT Sukhnandaa Lal Dhruw Vs. RB8PONDBMTS Rameshwar Rao and anofher M- I.A. No.77ofa006 fAPPELLAinF Mandal Vs. RB8PONDBNTS Rameshwar Rao and another MISC. APPBAL8 U/8 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACT, 1988 No.39/2004 namety Sukhaaadaalal Dhqiw who also injured iii fhc said accident preferred M.A.No. 1007/2005 against the dismissal offhc claim petition. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the iajured claimants (appeUants herein) are that on 05.06.2003 the claimemts wcrc going to Mana Camp from. Abbanpur on the Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04.8090. Appellant Decpankar was driving the vehicle whereas appellaat Sukhnandanlal was sittmg as pfflion ridcr. On the way, at about 8.30 p.m., near Radiant PubUc School, one Tractor bearing Rcga.No. CPR 8369 which was beiag driven b^r respondent no. 1 in a rash aad negligent'iuanner, dashcd the inotorcycle, as a result of wliich, bofh the appeUants feU down aad sustamed grievous injuries on various parts of their bodies. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal m CIana No. 16/2004, in which appcllaat Deepankar Mandal was the claunant, frained the issuc as to wbether the accident in question took place ia which the Tractor No. CPR 8369 dashed the niotorcycle No. C.G. 04/8090 causing injuries to him. The Tribunal decided fhe same ia aEBrmative fhat is proved. But in Claim No.39/2004 of SlikhiiaDdanlal, issue no.l was fi-amed whether on 05.06.2003 tfae Tractor No. CPR 8369 which was being driven by non-appUcaat no. 1 ia a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle aad the said issue was decided in aegative that is not proved. 5. Once tfae accident has been heM to be proved in the earlier claim petition, it caanot be said that the same is not proved ^s ia the later claim. petition filed in a diflfercnt Tribitnal. In fact, Claim Case No.39/2004 was filed on 20th January 2004 before Sixfh Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereas CIaim Pctition No. 16/2004 was ffled on 19.01.2004 before the IX Additioiial Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, Claim Petition No.39/2004 has been decided by 13th Addl. MACT. 6. Since thcre are contrary findings regardiag the saine issiie, we are of the opinion that bofh the matters bc reniitted to the leamed District Judge, Raipur, who shall entrust both these matters to one MACT only for examiuation and the claun petitions sbaU be decided a&esh. For tbe purpose of enhanceinent iu Claim Petition No. 16/ 2004, it will be for the claiinaat to pursue his claim before tbe Tribuaal. 7. In view of fhe abovc, we aUow both fhe appcals iti part; set aside ftie iinpugned awards dated 10.05.2005 and 24.08.2005 aad remit the mattera to the leamed District Judge, Raipur who shaU assign bofh the matters to one MACT that is Sfarth Addl. MACT where the Claim Petition No.39/2004 was filed. Needless to Bnention that fhe partics shaB, be aUowed to amead fhe pleaduigs, adduce farther evidence, file the docunients or get the dociuu.ents verified eto and thereafter the decision shatl be takcn afresh clubbirig both the claim pctitions. The Lower Court Records shall be sent to fhe D.J. Raipur forthwifti for bis onward action. The parties shaU appear before the VI Addl. Motor Accideot Claims Tribunal, Raipur on ll.th Mav, 2001. No order as to costs. 8. At this stage, Mr. P.P. Sahu, leamed, counsel for the respondeats subnuts that he has filed Cross Objections in M.A.No.77/2006 arising out of Claim Case No. 16/2004 oa the grouiid that fhere was contnbutoiy negUgence on the part ofappellaat aad therefore, thc amount ofaward and the liability if any be apportioned between thc parties. Siace the matters are directed to be remitted to the concemed MACT, it will bc open for tfae rcspondents to raise the plea regardiag apportionincnt before the Tribunal in. case thcy feel ftiat thc finduigs would go in their favour. Accordingly, cross objection filed in M.A.No.77/2006 also stands disposed of. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Nlishra Judge Rao