B^ISI!®ttsncy Hon'bleD.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. C.G. APPELLANTS /' : CLAIMANANJ^ ^ ^ <sT ^/.ry/. ^. ^^" ^%7 '..'<•*. ' >* €?s/ ;->-^w.- ••'^•'t" .^J. ^•' RESPQNDENTS: MISC.APPEALNo. lxl? /2004. 1. Podiyami Hidma , S/o Deva, aged about 33 years, Caste Gond, R/o Rampuram, Thana Gadiras, Tehsil Sukma, District Dantewada, (C.G.) 2. Podiyami Bhima, S/o Deva, / aged about 30 years, Caste Gond, PJo Rampuram, Thana Gadiras, Tehsil Sukma, District Dantewada, (C.G.) 3. Podiyami Mukey, W/o Deva, ^ aged about 50 years, Caste Gond, R/o Rampuram, Thana Gadiras, Tehsil Sukma, District Dantewada, (C.G.) VERSUS 1, Mahadev Bhogami, S/'o Sunku ^ Bhogami, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Mangnar, Thana Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) (Driver ofthe Tmck) 2. Mahadev Bhogami, S/o Sunku Bhogami, aged about 35 years, Resident ofVillage Mangnar, Thana Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) (Owner ofthe Truck) 3,. ^Fhe New India Insurance (S-i^Company, Through Branch /'" Manager, Near Jliankar Talkies, Jagdalpur ,DistricfrBastar (C.G.) (Inswer ofthe Tmck) .LU-ILAU APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 FOR COMPENSATION. ^*5~.. ~^a iNI |«<tl»e,iaBtt{ HKH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILA5PUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE ttR. I.M.QUO&USI A HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE A&ARWAL. JJ. ABpellants (Claimants) Respondents tt.A.No.1219/2004 Podiyami Hidma & others Vs Mahadev Bhogami Aothers PresOTt: Ur. Alok &evon9an, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, Advocct-e for respondent No.3. ORDERfOran C241<1 Nowmber. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants/claimants have filed this miscetlaneous appeal under Section 173 of the AAotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned nward dcrted 20.08.2004 passed by the learned Actditionnl Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastnr, Dcntewada (C6) (for brevity the tribunar) in Claim Cose No.61/2004 dismissing the claim petition of the ciaimants/appetiants herein. 3. Faets of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are unfort'unate widow and minor children of deceased Podiyami Deva, have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,48,000/- for the denthof Podiyami Deva, in the accident which took place on 2.4,2002 when truck bearing registration AAP25/B/D795, in which the deceased was traveling, wois driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the vehicle as a result of which the deceased fallen down from the truck and sustained injuries on vnrious pa*ts of his body and died on 3.4,2002 in teoharani Hospitol, Jagdalpur. 4. Non-opplicants No.l & 2 have filed their written stotement and except the facts stated in pora-2 of the application have denied the entire averments made by the claimants in the claim petition.' ;s^?"- '• ••:sy' ;'i s fi? -•/ s 5. Non-applicant No.3 has also filed its writt-en statement denying the cose of the ctoimants. It has also been contended by the non-applicnnt No.3 that' the driva- ofthe vehicle was nothavin9 valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle was plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance poticy. The truck wos being used for carrying the passengers, whereas the policy is issued in respect of goods vehicle. 6. The tribunal, after hearing the pcrties in the matter and appreciating the evidence available on record, (lianissed the claim petttion holding that the claimants faiied to prove the fact of accjdent and therefore they are not entitled to receive any compensation, 7. Learned counsel for the appeltants submitted that a reporf' of the incident has been lodged in the police station and thereaft'er' on the date of accident itsetf i.e. 2.4.2002 the deceased was sent for medical treatment to AAaharani t-lospital, where he died and thereafter postmortem excniinution over his dead body wae condycted by the doctor of AAAarcmi Hosptial, Jagdalpur. However, the tribunal hos not taken all these focts into consideration and passed the impugned awnrd dismissing the ctaim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the accident. 8. On the other hnnd, learned counsel appenring for the respondent No.3 has supported the impugned awnrd. 9. We hove heard leorned counsel fortheport'jes and perused the impugned awnrd as also records of the tribunal below. 10. From perusal ofthe record, it appeors thot the nccident had taken place on 2.4.2002 ot 11.00 p.m. nnd the first informat'ion report of the some was lodged on the same day ot about 11.45 p.m. Podiyomi Hidma, who was also traveting in the said vehicle, was examined in the witness box as AW-2 ond he narroted entire incident. However. the tribunal has only discussed that whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicleas fare paying passenger or gratuitous passenger and given the finding to the effect that accident is not proved. Theevidence and plea taken in theclain) petition to the effect that the deceased fallen due to rosh and negligent driving of the truck driver was disbetieved. In this situotion, we ore of the opinion that the matter requir-es reconsidernt'ion at the end of the tribunal. 11. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in port, set aside the award dated 20.8.2004 passed in Claim Cnse No.61/2004 by the learned Additional AAotor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, South Bastar, &antewadannd rernit the motter back to the tribunal for decision afresh. The claim petition shatl be restored to its original number nnd shall be decided afresh by the tribunal after affording opportunity to the pcrties to adduce additional evidence, if any, in support of their respective cases. It is made clear that whatever findings have been given in the impugned award shall not be taken into consideration and wjthout being influenced by those findings, the decision shall be taken by the tribunal independently. 12. The Registry is directed to trnnsmit the record of the tribunal concerned without further delay. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge an/-