'tte '(St^C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR_tC,G,J M-A^No^_'^'l^ OF 2003 Bwls'mi APPELLANT : y- BRIJENDRA PRASAD (PLAINTIFF) AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/0 SHRI BHUSAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF LOWER P.N. BARS COMPOUND LALPUR, RANCHI (JHARKHAND) VERSUS SSSSS BllHiiiB II'II'IMB l^l^llif! i;!g:lllia3!l ysasi ;!^^J^i' VS^SWiS RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS) : ^ .^•y:." --x^^5.-''' - ^;^?' :^-^y ^0^<^: <^-:^" ^"" ^ BALBIR S1NGH ; AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SON OF TENA SINGH RESIDENT OF JABADAI:-ARA, SARKANDA BILASPUR (DRIVER) NARENDRA KUMAR YAI3AV AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUDUDAND, BILASPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR (BUS-OWNER) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., B-l, TATA COMPLEX RING ROAD, PRIYADARSHANI NAGAR, BILASPUR (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT The ggapellant js . filing this appeal against the judgement. \^~~ '' ^' ~s-"' -- . - _-.._'. dated 28.04.2Q03 passed by IIIrd Motor Accident Claini Tribuna.l ^^ Bilaspur in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 79/2002 cin tlic 3. following facts and grounds. .^O^l^v^L e^ c^w-^e~\.i^^'~'"-'^a •2- ^^lC^G CT3 ( •-iFS (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.No.789/2003 Brijendra Prasad Versus Balbir Singh and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ PRESENT: Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Sahu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (4-10-2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Glaimant against the award dated 28-4-2003 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribiinal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 79/2002 dismissing the claim petition. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14-3-2002 at about 9.45 a.m. when the appellant along with his friend Vikas reached at Bus Stand and was boarding bus bearing registration No. MP 26/B-4675, the driver of the bus suddenly ran the bus, as a result of which, he fell down and it rear wheel ran over his waist hip, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988., 3. Learned Tribunal on* a close scrutiny of the evidence led, submissions made and raaterial placed, disraissed the claim on the ground that fhe appellant himself was respGatsible for the injuries sustained. 4. We have perused the record. P<(.')'"J? 3-' *w 7. 8. 9. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence properly. Claimant (P.W. 1) has clearly stated, on his request the driver stopped the bus but at the time of his boarding, the bus suddenly started running. Therefore, the appellant cannot be blamed for the above accident. Learned Tribunal did no-t consider this aspect of the matter. Further the possibilily of contributory negligence cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has also not considered that Dr. Vikram IChetrapal (P.W. 4) who treated the appellant has given certificate regarding appellant's temporary disablement to the extent of 35- 40%. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 28-4-2003 and remit the raatter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The Claim petition shall be restored to its original number and it shall be decided in the light of the observations made above. The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and argue their case. The Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously. The records of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ?/ )--:: i;_ |^<?^- • .3^ /