^i'^> IN THE HIGH C0CTRT OF JOBIC&TtJlffi AT BIIASPXJR (CG) MISC.APEEAL N0« 3^^ @S 2004 ( Ifemorandum 6f Hisc.Appeal U/s 173 o£ M.V. Act ) APPELLANTS / ^y .^^^ ,.*fr'T, ^'v^**\ .*•***' c^^c^c" .^.'s^y v ".^e' ^y^ .*•**' '<^.^ (&" ^ RESTONDENTS » 1» Dewarin Bai wa/o Iiate sakalaram|; / aged 35 years* 2> GajaaaBd S/o Late sukalu Rctn ~/ . aged 19 years » ^3» Sajadbar s/o Iiate sakala Rara aged 18 yeacs » Ka»Saj"ra B/o Iiate sukalu Bam» aged 16 years » Kejal Bai Wd/o Maliuran aged 66 years* Sl»ao»'4ttsScB.oc throa^i natural guardian mother aewaria Bai &11 by caste Gond»r/o Village Sambalpur Tehsil aad Blstr-ict Dhaatari < 03) • Viersas 3^» Bajendea Ktunar S/o sbrl ^ ReBtkripal Sapta, r/e Kallbadi €3a®wk,Btehra Nagar Raipar *' 2» Raae^h Kumar Saelidev s/o ^ NarayaaBas sacIaaeY,r/o NahaEpara Baipur fCS). MEMQRAHKJM O? HXSC JffiPEAE 0NDBR SECTION 173 OP M.V.ACT ,tSV <*• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No.979/2004 APPELLANTS Dewarin Bai and others Versus RESPONDENTS Rajendra Kumar and another DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ PRESENT:- Shri SunilSahu, Advocate, forappellants. None appears for fhe respondents. ORAL ORDER (23-11-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 31-7-2004 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 154/2004. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 9-2-1997 atabout 7.30 p.m. deceased Siikaluram was going afoot at village Sam.balpur. At that time, a jeep bearing registration No. MP 23 T 0686 coming towards Raipiir being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent inanner dashed Sukaluram, as a result of which, he died on spot. The accident was reported to Police Station Dhaintari where Crime No. 38/1997 was registered. The claimants being widow, children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition iinder Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 5,62,250/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. .Learned Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the ctaim petition. 4. We have perused the record of the Tribunal as also the " jmpugned award. ^ •'aw 5. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it has not been proved from the evidence available on record that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and it has also not been proved that respondent No. 2 was registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 6. Rule 226 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and dociunents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claiin whether the parties who were given notice, appears or not, on fhe date ffaced. 7. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is provided that on receipt bf an application for compensation ina.de under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shaU, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving fhe parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim. The Tribunal ought to have summon report as well as registration certificate or relevant document from the Regional Transport Officer to see as to who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal in the light of the observat.ions made above. / 9. Therefore, we aUow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 31-7-2004 and remit the matter .back to the Tribunal for decision afjesh on merit in the Ught of the observations made above. : 10. The Claim petition shall be restored to its original number - ,arid after giving opportunity to fhe parties to adduce v /-~\ ^•a^i'iufsS^&^ aaSiMo-BS.-i.Bi.t; •:<^ '•:w'Si> -...^ "•.y;;^^1' evidence or to make amendment in the pleadmg by the parties or to file documents or to verify the doeuments ^V^^ already filed, the claim petition shall be decided afresh in v^—-^ the light of the observations made above, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 11. Recbrd of the Tribunal be sent back without any further delay. 12. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal along-with copy of this order on 13-12-2010. 13. No order as to costs. —--~sa/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ?/