l^. c\^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BLLASFUR (C.G.) M.A. N0. /2003 iVJ"Ic"1 BerSG! Appellant Claimant Smt. Kadti Bhime, W/o. Kadti Handa, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Saneli, Patelpara, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS Respondent's l.^Asantlal, s/o. P.Lal, R/o. Malappa XCam.p Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) -S?A'-U: r.^" ..^^^ ;•' •••"" c.'(\<s '•&"° ^•^^•''"^ '^:.- /• ^ 2. Tukaram Pendarkar, S/o. Chintamani Pendarkar, R/o. Village - Saneli, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 3.$ New India Insurance Co. Ltd., ' Near to Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur (C.G.) tai MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. i T JS 'K ^-"^/^ »>' ^ -HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A. No.1045/2003 Smt. Kadti Bhime Appellant Claimanl Resoondents Vs Asantlal and others Present: Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with respondent No. 3/insurance company. r. Anand Gupta, counsei for ORDER (Orall (29th June, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal has been filed by theappellant agafnst the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Bastar (in short "the Tribunal") dated 27.8.2003 dismissing the cfaim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.2000 while deceased Kadti Hunga was sitting in Vehicle No. MP 25B/0991 near Village : Chintalnar, at that time respondent No.1 by driving the Vehicle No. MP 258/1746 rashly and negtigently, caused an accident with Vehicle No. MP 258/0991, as a resuit of which Kadti Hunga sustained grievous injuries over his hand, head and leg and succumbed to the same. The deceased was a driver by profession and thereby eaming Rs.2,000/- per month. At the time of aceident, he was 24 years. Report of the incident was lodged at Potice Station : Jagargunda, whereupon Crime No.9/20(K) for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of the IPC was registered. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 at the time of accident. The appellant is wdow mother of the deceased and she was totally dependent upon the deceased as she has no other source of income. Thus, by filing a claim petition, a trtal compensation of Rs.13 lakh was claimed by the appellant/claimant. 3. We have perused the findings recorded in the impugned award as well as LCR. 4. From perusal of the statements recorded by the ctaims Tritwnal, it does not appear that at any place, any of the witnesses has stated J^--—- .., o. that the deceased was sitting on the right side of the driver. It was a commander jeep, in which the deceased was traveling. Though the deceased was sitting on the right side, but not on the right side of the driver. There is a middle row in the jeep also. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was sitting on the right side, but not on the right side of the driver. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in arriving at a perverse finding that the deceased was sitting on the right side of the driver, which is beyond the record. The truck was coming from opposite direction anct therefore, it was the duty of the truck driver to take precaution and keep distance from the vehicle, standing or just started to run from opposite side. Hence, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be ruled out. However, since police record is not before us, we are not in a position to give any specific finding regarding total negligence or contributory negligence. 5. in view of above, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and the findings given by the Tribunal and consequently, remit the matter to the ciaims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the ofthe observations made above. 6. The ciaims Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 1 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 225 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The parties shalt also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verified. The poltee record shoukl also be summoned and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. 7. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28 July, 2011. 8. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Certified copy as per rules. ,—— —— - -— Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge