IN THE I-HGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 1C.G.) Misce. Appeal No gyg /2003 QM Eemh Mam Road, Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Israk Khan, S/ o. Basheer Khan, R/o. Village Nawapara, P.S. and Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 3. United India Insurance Company 5 K Limited, Through Divisional Manager Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) PREVIOUS OWNER 2. <, Claim \v/ Rs. 5,oo,ooo.oo Awarded Rs. Nil / Claim in appeal J Rs. 5,oo,ooo.oo ”4" . W MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR na, VEHICLE ACT 1988 Eg w“ Agalnst an award dated 23 O8 2003 passed by learned Shrl T R Churendra Second Add1t1onal Motor Acc1dent Clalm/Trlbunal (Fast Track Court) Surajpur in \_,./ . M.A.C. No. 09/2003. {V APPELLANT Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o. Ram Prasad XCLAIMANT ‘Sahu, Aged 28 years, Caste Teli, I, Occupation Service, R/o. Village §xél7éxa§$ Sahupara, Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsil %\:Q&Ga} “y! ’ Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ‘w ‘i‘;§§€§ é , 6:..9": '. w. . VERSUS RESPONDENTS V Satlsh Garg, S/ o Indrasen Garg, OWNER (5 PankaJ General Store I 1 r f HIGH'COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR' ’ ’ l HON’BLE LM. QIIDDUSI & HON’BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC. APPEAL No. 898 OF 2003 Vs. RESPONDENTs Satish Garg and two others APPEALm UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 V APPEARANCE: Mr. "Sanjay Agrawal counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Agr'awal, counsel for respondent no.3. ORDER (oRALl (13.09.2010) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J 1. This appeal has been nled against the impugned award dated 23.08.2003 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Surajpurrin M.A.C. No.09/2003 dismissing the claim of the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case ale as under: (i) On 16. 11.2001 at about 7 p.m., respondent no.1 was riding the Scooter No.M.P.27/C—7611 on the main mad of Surajpur—Bishrampur. The appellant] claimant was sitting as pillion rider.‘ It is alleged that respondent no. 1 was riding the scooter while smoking a Cigarette and when they reached near the Bridge of Ren river, they saw a Truck 407 coming from Surajpur and in order to give side to the said truck, the Scooter tl'iCd to come down the edge of the road and suddenly when its wheel ran over on a small rock they fell down on the ground as a result of which, the apfzellant sustained injuries The Tribunal has opined that it is not proved that respondent no. 1 along-with appellant was coming on Scooter bearing Regn.No.27 C/7611. In Para 15 of the award, the Tribunal has given the'following nndings: u; umduwwmmeniwwga w‘maigmftzvwmnwiaemmwimn‘a amo$w~1§mme€si?wua’a1¥m Mm#m%f$wanmw.n.27w7e11 Eamon—v1 idw$maenwm.mmm nwnaéamaammawméas‘fmefn Heartamwagawmmmwanaqvima an arm“ e am m mane! m “REE—F1 1i 15x1 wm€%asmehasrwwmwm I' umgamuaugr11¥magamm€eaaae°té mammmnwaa‘awma Wanménaamemmdwwmwel Wagnmmaainamménaeaafhni Qanm‘aiawimmwe Iwuam'iiuam? H§§m%m%wwwm —q11,tfr,27w7s11 @‘nmawow‘aéamanieail Reply to Para 19 of the claim petition nnds place in Para 17 of the Written statement filed by non-applicant no. 1, Satish Garg. The vehicle number was given in paragraph 19 of the claim petition which was not denied by respondent no. 1 in his written statement. Para 19 of the claim peu'tion is also relevant here and quoted below: ”m am awm§$w§¢m$£m$g g$§$ mWE gun E3 muwE aE.m.. 333% WE gm»: ~um.uuu.m§Wemwmm'A«Elam MEHE Em: g. 7%§&oi$%$$“qgmw§ §§&w.%§a3$ma %&%§§w.§@§$m W «mag ad L. g $.c§.&.~u\«?§:mm @qzd&mmw§a§.%wwimw§3 W§§£&%§§§§g§~w §£$$§§££E§§w§£§i ga§$§£mgw§ §§i%@§%gg$ §.§§.§§i£m¢3$w£ £$§§wgm§4$§§ §§§m§§$w_§g§ W§§§§mq§£i§§£ §§.§§m§%§£§ %§i$§§w.§§¢ ”4% awQw— u.8.8o\l§.mwzm va Ag A§Q§§§£§§Eaa\$g a». m. Sn §W§§$%%Aw»§ §%§%£§w Ewggmwwwimmmlw § 3%#@%%%£§%=%§4&4 §§Mmm§§£#%mawmm_§um www§§mwaa§H~§mw§£ %|%i§,§§%mn~£§%amm@ § §§£§§£§“§§g& n§~&§§n§m&$§é%_ E Hammw no g E owawn 3&3 waHEoPRwwobmga we. H wmm wwwgmEm moHwogm E wmuw HQow9w sigmu m§~m§a§w wt, qx«a ‘ .. W3 The gist of Para 17 of the Wn'tten statement is that respondent no. 1 has clearly admitted that he was driving the Scooter in question and the appellant was sith'ng behind 1 him. He stated that when he was driving the Scooter, an unknown vehicle 407 dashed the scooter and as a result of Iwhich, the appellant and respondent no. 1 both fell down. 6. Therefore, in our opinion, the nnding of the Tribunal on the basis of Para 19 of the ’claim petition is perverse in the face M of admission of respondent no. 1 vide Para 17 of his written statement 7. In View of the above, we feel that it is a iit case for remand. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part. The impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal concerned. The claim petition of the claimant shall be restored to its original number. The Tribunal shall decide the matter anesh as early as possible after providing opportunity to adduce further evidence of the parties concerned, if any. The records of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith without furtherdelay. 1‘ ‘ sm— Sdl— it. ‘1 N. K.Agarwal 1.M.QUDDUSI if 1 Judge Judge i h J‘ Rao