.? ;^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - | { 2- 2-- OF 2010 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 CF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) ABPELLANT '"CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS N6N-CLAIMANTS ^Ravishankar Verma, S/o Lalaji Verma, aged about 30 years, R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS Basant Sinha, S/o Hariram Sinha, aged about 28 years, R/o - Behind Makdi Dhaba,Kanker, Police Station - Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) [Driver ofvehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 05/A- 3462] ]VEohmmed Rahim S/o Shri Hazi GulamBhai, aged about 26 years, R/o Shitlapara, Kanker, Police Station - Kanker, Tahsil & District - Kanker(C.G.) [Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 05/A-3462] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) [Insurer ofvehicle Tnick bearing registration No. CG 05/A- 3462] w^" MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 .^ LjD HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BIL/^SPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.a^LAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Appellant Respondents M.A. [Cl No. 1122/2010 ftavishankar Verma Vs Basant Sinha & others Present: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for 1+ie appellant; Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent NoJ. AAr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Oral) (23rd August. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-claimcxnt has filed 1+iis miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 16.03.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short lthe Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.84/09. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.03.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. in the night the appelfant was traveling on the motor cycle of one ftamkumar as pitlion rider and going towards Raipur. Near crossing Sankra ftailway Crossing, a truck bearing registration number CG05-A-3462, being driven rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the said motorcycle as a result of which both of them sustained grievous injuries. Said Ramkumar died on the spot and the cppetlant was taken to the hospital for treatment. In the said accident. the appellant had sustained injury on his throat, head. left knee & hand etc. Despite inser-tion of an iron in his throat, the appellant cannot move his neck properly. Thus, the appelloait has claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,13,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the claim application of the claimant on the ground that the claimant failed to prove his claim. .^s?^. /^-^^ / ^ I,. ^ ^^^;^^^ ''IS®*>^1 9^€^ f^ff^^ ^ 1 J./ L< 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties< We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the truck, which caused the accident in question and not having any registration number plate, was seized after the incident and at that point pf time wrong registration number of truck i.e. €©19/2586,was informed. However, during investigation the police traced out the correct number i.e. C605-A-3462 and thereafter charge sheet was filed against the driver of offending vehicle Jn the court below concerned. The owner of offending truck namely Mohammed Rahim, son of Haji ^ulam moved an application for giving custody of the truck and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari vlde order dated 4.4.2003 released the offending vehicle bearing Chasis No.364073878291 on suprudnama, In the written statement, the owner of offendin9 vehicle has not denied the fact of accident with his truck bearing registration number C605-A-3462 but only alleged that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle. However, the fact is that accident had taken place due to bursting of tyre of offendin9 vehicte and the police had also seized the truck in that condition. 7. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had not taken place by truck No.Ce05-A-3462 but it was caused by truck No.C619/2586, but this was not even the case of the owner of offending vehicle as in the written statement he has admitted the fact of accident by his truck- Besides this, the Claims Tribunal has held that extent of negligence of the driver of driver of motorcycle and driver of the truck No.C619/2586 is 50:90 because it was a case of contributory negligence. But, despite the fact that at the time of seizure, the tyres of truck were found burst, the Claims Tribunal has not made any endeavour to find out as to whether the accident had taken place due to bursting of tyre of the truck- In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that findjngs of the Claims Tribunal are totally perverse as the same are not the result of proper enquiry which the Claims Tribunal is required to conduct as per Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and also as per /^^ l'^;v^<iwpt?-;t^ •-BK^ | decision of ttie Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajkumar Vs, Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, or to recatl the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify 1+ie documents already filed and then decide the cbim petition after conducting necessary enquiry as provided under Sections 168 <& 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rules 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 29 September. 2011. 9. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay< No order as to costs. — Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Roshan/-