K !te[~:n 3) ^ ^5^ a»iif IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUMCATURE AT BIIASPUR.fC.G.l MiscelianeousA^^I No. /2003 /e(Ai / ^. ^y" ^^^ Gryfe'.x'' _..••" :'-%^"" ^s\^^?- ^•y^"' S^A /- I) Dutjka Bai, W/o DeviSingh aged about 20 yis. 2) Amaru Singh,S/o.Jhitaku Singh ^tged 45 yrs. yjenwari Bari, W/o. Amaro Singh, ^ Agaed about 43 yrs 4) Dagar Singh, S/o Deiri Sjngh ^ed about 7 yis. PennaBent Addr^, Vilt:Bhudaniahan ; P.0. SamabahalJateit-GariyabBnd Dirt: Raipur (CG), PnMentaddras, Mova, P.S-, P.O.Jahsil & Risbict: Raipur(CG) WRSI.B RESPONDENTS : /l) Dileshwar Prasad, S/o Niannlal Sahu C/o. Kamal Kumar^rawal. B/5 Faridita Complot, Raipur (CG) Kamal Kumar ^grawal, B/5 Farishata Comffex, Raipur (CG) NaCond Insurance Co. Uri., Diviaona! Manager, G.E. Rrod, Rai[»ir(CG) /2>' ^' Miscellaneous Aooed uiuter section 1?3 OF Motor Vductes Act 1988 -;>,, ~'.;k i%ia ••^":v*s, >•»"'-,•?./ ^y^ {''^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHAmSSARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI & HON'BLE MK.6UL4M MINHAjyDDIN, JJ ApDellants Respondents A.A. No.68/2003 . butika Bai & ors Vs • Dileshwar Prasad & others Mr. Shivendu Pandy & Mr. Tarun Dansea, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with AAr. A. Supta, Adv. for respondent No.3. None for the respondent Nos.l & 2 OR&ER (Oral) imi (2na September. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellnnts have filed this appeal against the award dated 19.10.2002 passed by the learned 3 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.41/02. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are wife, son & parents of deceased Devi Singh, ho.ve filed a claim petition undec Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act, 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,59,000/- for the death of said Devi Singh, who died in a road cccident on 9.10.2001 when Matador bearing registration number MP23-DA-4889, in which the deceased was travelin9 as tabourer, was overturned due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the.deceased, who was sole earning member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the claim application of the claimonts failed to prove their claim. 5. We have heard leffrned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Ciaims Tribunal. --3—: 1 £illlil, Lj In the written statement filed by the non-applicant Nos.l <& 2 i.e. owner & driver of vehicle in question, it has been admitted that the deceased was traveling in the said vehicle. However, it has been alleged by them that the deceased himself jumped-out from the vehicle, but the police record shows otherwise that vehicle in question was overturned and a person whose identity was not known was pressed under it. Thus, once it is admifted by the driver & owner of the vehicle in the written statement that the deceased was traveting in the said vehicle, the claimtints were not required to prove that fact. However, if there was any doubt in the mind of the Claims Tribundl in that regard, it should have conducted on enquiry to ascertain the truth as provided under Section 168 & 169 of •tt)e Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, but the same has not been done in the present case ouid as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court- in Para- 11 of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265. Therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matt-er is remitted back to the Ciaims Tribunal for decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if ony, or to call/recall the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already filed and then decide the claim petition after conducting necessary enquiry as provided under Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rules 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Records of criminal case moy also be summoned by the Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim petition. t The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 12th October. 2011. The Re9istry is directed to transmit record of the Ciaims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to^costs. Sd/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi G. Minhajuddin Judge Judge !;:osh-Ein/-