IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ,M.A. Nai‘H of 2003 . LAXMINATH SON OF SOMARU AGED 43 XEARS, CASTE—HALBA . SUKHDAI WIFE OF LAXMINATH AGED 41 ‘ yEARs, CASTE-HALBA . SOMARU SON OF RANJAN AGED ’ 61 YEARS, CASTE—HALBA ; TAHSIL— NARAYANPUR,‘ DISTRICT— BASTAR. Gem) APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS f VERSUS AHAVIR CHAND JAIN \ RESIDENT OE MAIN ROAD, NARAYANPUR, DISTRICT- BASTAR. KC» w ) SON OF .SHANTILAL JAIN RESPONDENT/ NON PLICANT '; APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1 73 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ‘ Wmhonwq mpnwwm .1/7ao/m96" Viw,w I . ,I ALL RESIDENTS OF GRAM TURTHA, / 7] HIGH‘COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR‘ Misb. APPEAL UNDER sEc'non 173 ow 11m mo'ronvvmmcms , Ac'n,~198s ‘ Apy’earance: r Mr. Vivek C$‘opra, counsel fqr thc appellants. Mr. Santosh Bhalat, counsel for the respondent. \ r ORAL ORDER (01.11.2011) ;um Per :1.M.>QUDDUSI, J, 1. 1 This appeal. has been med by the olaimants against the 1 impugned awald dated 18.11.2002 passed by the IVth i Addiiional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Distt. 1' Bastar (C.G) in Claim Case No.27] 2002 dismissing the claim of % the appellants. 2. 3 Bnef facts of the case as per the velslon of claimants are that on 09 O3 2001 deceased Virsmgh was returmng n‘om Farasgaon Bazar by cycle. On the way at about 7 p.m., near Farasgaon High school a vehicle bearing Regn.No. M.P. 25/ 881 1 Which was being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, as a result of y which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. L The claimants being dependents/legal representatives have nled claim petition u/ s 166 of the Motor Vehicles for the award of total compensation of Rs, 17 lakhs on various heads. 3. i Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation disbelieved the version of the claimants and dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI as Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ ' \ M. A. No. 291 of 2003 \ APPELLANTS: LaXminath and two othars 1 Vs. RESPONDENTS: Mahavir Chand Jain 1 } i E } V I i I > 4. We have gonc through the records of the Tribunal as also the moords of Criminal Case No. 160] 2000 which was pending in the Court, of JMFC, Narayanpur and have found that it is a case of no evidence as the sole eye wimess had not noted the registrau'on number of the oh’ending vehicle as it was the dark night at the time of accident. The driver was acquitted of the oh'ence punishable u/s 304—A by judgment dated 30.11.2002. It is, in fact, a case of hit and run and in absence of anyrcogent evidence. it cannot be said later on that it was the same vehicle “which was involved in the accident i.e., Vehicle number No. M.P.25/8811. However, since the deceased died due to accident occuned with an unknown vehicle, We are .of the oninion thaa the Tribunal should have gianted liberty to the claimants to move an application under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has not been done. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal with liberty to‘the claimants to hle an application u/ s 161 of the MVA on the ground of hit and run motor accident, \ 'W/3W: Sd# I.M. QUDDUSI Judge G_Minhaiuddin ' Judge Aw