IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH /^ AT BILASPUR.^Tl^/ c<v' ^ M.A.fQ N0. a /2009 iy s l§S5f?. APPELLANTS Clamgints ^-^^' oa-^: ^•;.;- 1] ^ Raturam S/o. Ghasiram, Aged about 55 years ij</ 2^/ Kokyiya Bai, W/o. Raturam, Aged ^v ^y about 50 years, <^^^^ Both above R/o. Harnadadar, Post Ghunchapali, Police Station Bagbahra., Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) ,.Y^ RESPONDENTS ents VERSUS IJ^-Indrajeet Singh Randhawa, S/o. ^ Kishan Singh, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Pilibheet, Police Station Gajrola^ Uttar Pradesh At present R/o. BFC Transport^ Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) ^.(Driver of offendins vehicle bearing^ resistrution no. C.G. 04/Z-3905} ^ Kulwant Singh, S/o. Preetam Singh., ^ R/o. Transport, Tatibandh, Raipur, ^ Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) ^.(Owner of offendins vehicle bearins resistration no. C.G. 04/Z-3905) The oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office No.2, Chawla Complex, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ^.(Insurer of offendins vehicle hearlns resistration no. C.G. 04/Z-3905) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT8 Claimants .RESPO^TDENTS MA. (QNo. 912 of2009 Raturam & anotlier. VERSUS Indrajeet Singli Randhawa & Others. Respondetits APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEKICLE ACT DB: Hon'ble Shr?* Satisii K. Agmliotri & Hon9MeSliri N.ICAgarwal, JJ» Present: Shri M.V.Paranjpe, x^dvocate fbr tlie appellants. Sliri Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate forthe respoiident No, 3. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 03ra day of December, 2009) Per Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Heard. 1. This appeal arises from the award dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Chief Motor Accidesit Claitiis Tribunal- Mahasamund, in Claim Case No. 74/2008. 2. The contentiosi of leamed counsel for the appellante/claimants is that in a case where the son of the appellants/ciaimanfs namely Kalia @ Gopsiiigh met with an accident on 6.10,2007 vvhile he was going on foot to his residence, it vvas difficult for them to examine tiie witnesses as the claimants themselves came to kiiow about the accident and death of their son subsequently when they were informed that the deceased son has been taken to the hospital on account ofsosiie injur\r caused by a vehicle. Shri Paranjpe further submits that in such a situation, it is difficult for the claimants to exanime aiiy witness. However, the other ciro^mstaiices i.e. admission to the hospital, post mortem report, mvestigation made by the police, are reievant documents which have completely been ignored by the leamed Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused by offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04/Z-3905. s> 3. It is well-settled principle oflaw that exammation ofwitnesses is one. part ofthe examination ofevidences and one has to look into the total facts asid circumstaiices of the case. It appears that the leamed Tribunal, wifhout examinmg other aspects ofthe matter, has come to conclusion that smce the claimants have failed to examine the witaesses, tfaeretbre, they do not desen7e any compensation. 4. On pemsal ofthe records- it is further found that the Tmck owiier and the driver ofthe alleged offendmg vehicle were impleaded as par^-respondeiits but they liave not appeared before the Tribimal in order to rebut the allegations made against tliem. Thus, the question arises asto whether iiiterence may be drawn against the appellants/claimaiits when the driver and the owner of the Tmck have have not come forward to rebut the allegations made against them. 5. Without going much in detail on merit, the matter is r^manded back to the Tribunal for consideration of the case afresh after examination of the documents and other attending circumstances, includmg other witnesses if produced by the claimants/appellants. Thereafter, the Tribunal may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 011 its owii merits, as early as possible. Tlie parties are pei-mitted -to adduce additional evidenees, if so advised. The Tribunal may consider other evidences also, ifadduced by the parties. 6. The observations, if any, made hereinabove, shall aot be eonstmed as our opmion on ment. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 8. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned fi-om the Tribunal, forthwith. Ajmt Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge