IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. 2-7 I OF 2011 ssnn Ksi ^Hty.'ijfl B^^ii; APPELLANTS 1. 2. RESPONDENTS : VERSUS 1. ^ ^ ~^c> ^ ^^/;v ^/^' ;. «sP' .;.' ^. ^ 3.. ^' Chetan Ram Sahu, S/o Motiram, aged about 40 years, Smt. Malti Bai SAhu, W/o Chetan Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years, Both are Resident of Village Bhilai, Pplice Station Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Bodhan Nirmalkar, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Ganoud, Police Station Arang, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Truck No. CG 04T-6027) Arun Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Dau Lal Nirmalkar, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Ganoud, Police Station Arang, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner ofTruck No. CG 04T-6027) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. l.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. M.A.MNo. 271/2011 Chetam Ram Sahu and another Appellants Resoondents Vs v{\ Dinesh Kumar Nirmalkar and others Present: Mr. PP Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None forthe respondents, though served. IStORDER (Orall (1SIDecember,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J; List is being revised. The case was called out twice, however, no one is present for the respondents, despite service of notice. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the respondents. 02. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 4.12.2010 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunal"), in Claim Case No.20/10, dismissing the claim petition. 03. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 30.11.2009 at about 2.30 pm, Ashok Kumar Sahu, who was at the relevant time studying in Class-Xl in Govt. Arundhati High School, Aarang, after school hours, was going to his residence at Bhilai by bicycle. However, on the way, respondent No.1 by driving Tata Magic bearing registration No. CG-04T-6027 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycle ofAshok Sahu, as a result ofwhich Ashok Sahu sustained gri'evous injuries and succumbed to the same while being taken to hospital for treatment. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. Thereafter, the claimants, who are cousin brother and cousin Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of the deceased, being his legal heirs/dependents, filed a s ^ claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads against the death ofAshok Sahu. 04. However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence, after hearing counsel for the parties, by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition. 05. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 06. Appellant/claimant No.1 is the first cousin of the deceased. It is alleged that no other close relation of the deceased is available. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that no evidence could be adduced by the appellants/claimants to the effect that they are the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased. 07. Section 166 provides that legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. The impleadment, in our opinion, was to be made by order of the Tribunal and hence, it was the duty of the Tribunal to pass an order for impleadment, directing the claimants to implead the relatives of the deceased as respondents to the application, who fall under the definition of "legal heirs" as per Hindu Succession Act. 08. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the ends of the Tribunal. 09. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law, in the light of observations made above. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce furi:her evidence, file documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. 11. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- l.M.Quddusi Jud&e Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^