^^" '^ BBFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NO. IOQ^ /2005 Division Bench h 'l ABPELLANT 1CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS € ^ Sukhnandan Lal Dhruw, Aged about 28 years, S/o. Kamta Prasad Dhruw, Occupation-Private Service, R/o. Sejbahar, Post Sejbahar, P.S. Tikarapara, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Rameshwar Rao, Aged about 55 years, ^S/o. Venkat Rao Thokne, Occupation €^ ^ Tractor Driver, R/o. Dumarpali, PS. Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (DRIVER) z^;"'" 4r ^ 2^o Gopal Rao, Occupation-Owner of the Vehicle, R/o. Village Sisda, Post Kurud, TahsU Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (OWNER) MISCELLENEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTroN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMQUNT J^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDU8I & HON'BLB PRASHANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M.A. No. 1007 of 2005 Vs. RB8PONDENTS Rameshwar Rao aad aaofher M.A. No.77of2006 Vs. MISC. APPBAL8 U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Pawan Kesarward, counsel for fhe appeUaat m M,A.No. 1007/2005. Mrs. Soni Shukla Sarkar, counsel for the appeUant in M.A. No.77of2006. Mr. P. P. Sahu, coiinsel for respondents ia bofh fhe appeals. PCT I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORDER (ORALt (20.04.2011) 1. These are fhe two appeals arisiag out of the sarne accident, but filed agaiast twro difiTerent awards passed by the different MACTs giviag contraxy findiags regardiag ttie fact of accident. 2. Claimaat of Claim Case No. 16/2004 namely Deepaiikar Maadal who was mjured m fhe accident m question filed M.A. No.77/2004 for enhaaceiaent of fhe axnount of compensation whereas the claimaat of Claim Petition ./ APPELLANT Sixkhnanidaa Lal Dhruw APPELLANT Deepaakar Maadal^ RB8PONDBWTS Raxneshwar Rao aad aaofher 1''- s. No.39/2004 namely Sukhnaadaalal Dhruw who also iajured m fhe said accident preferred M,A.No. 1007/2005 agamst fhe dismissal of fhe claim petition. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of the iajured claunants (appeUaats herein) are fhat on 05.06.2003 fhe claimaats were going to Maaa Camp from Abhaapur on the Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04.8090. AppeHaat Deepaakar was driviag fhe vehicle whereas appeUaat Sukhnandaalal was sittbig as piUion rider. On the way, at about 8.30 p.m., near Radiant PubUc School, one Tractor bearmg Regn.No. CPR 8369 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in. a rash aad negUgent raanner, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, both the appeUaats fell down and sustaiaed grievous iajuries on vadous parts of their bodies. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ia Claim No. 16/2004, ia which appeUaat Deepankar Mandal was fhe claioiant, framed the issue as to whefher fhe accident m question took place in which the Tractor No. CPR 8369 dashed the motorcycle No. C.G. 04/8090 causing injuries to him. The Tribunal decided fhe saaie in affirmative fhat is proved. But in Claim No.39/2004 of Sukhnandanlal, issue no.l was fi-amed whether on 05.06.2003 the Tractor No. CPR 8369 which was bemg driven by non-appUcaat no. 1 in a rash aad negUgent manner dashed fhe motorcycle aad fhe said issue was decided ia negative fhat is not proved. 5. Once fhe accident has been held to be proved m fhe earUer claun petition, it caanot be said fhat the same is not proved -.^% ^y.^' ^^;' ^ m the later claun petition filed m a different Tribunal. In fact, Claim Case No.39/2004 was filed on 20th Januaiy 2004 before Sixfh Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereas Claim Petition No. 16/2004 was ffled on 19.01.2004 before fhe IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal. However, Claim Petition No.39/2004 has been decided by 13th Addl. MACT. 6. Siace there are contraiy findiags regardiag fhe same issue, we are of fhe opiaion fhat bofh fhe inatters be remitted to fhe learaed Distdct Judge, Raipur, who sliall entnist both fhese matters to one MACT only for examination aad the clami petitions shall be decided afresh. For tfae purpose of enhaacement ia Clami Petition No, 16/2004, it wiU be for the claimaiit to pursue his claim before fhe Tribunal. 7. In view of the above, we allow both fhe appeals in part; set aside fhe impugned awards dated 10.05.2005 aad 24.08.2005 and remit the matters to fhe learaed Distdct Judge, Raipur who shall assign bofh the xnatters to one MACT that is Sixth Addl. MACT where the Claim Petition No.39/2004 was filed. Needless to niention that fhe parties shaU be allowed to amend the pleadiags, adduce further evidence, file the documents or get the documents verified etc aad fhereafter fhe decision shall be taken afresh clubbiag bofh fhe claim petitions. The Lower Court Records shall be sent to the D.J. Raipur forthwifh for his ouward action. The parties shaU appear before fhe VI Addl. Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal, Raipur on 11th May, 2001. No order as to costs. ^—— Rao 8. At fhis stage, Mr. P.P, Sahu, leamed counsel for the respondents submits fhat he has filed Cross Objections in M.A.No.77/2006 arismg out of Claun Case No. 16/2004 on fhe ground fhat fhere was contributory negUgence on ftie part ofappetlaiit and fherefore, fhe amoiint ofaward aad fhe liabUity ifaoy be appordoued between fhe parties. Siace the matters are directed to be remitted to fhe conceraed MACT, it wiU be open for fhe respondents to raise the plea regardmg apportionment before fhe Tribunal ia case they feel that tihie findiugs would go in fheir favour. Accordiagly, cross objection filed in M.A.No.77/2006 also staads disposed of Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 7' ••»sB-.,a A. ••^——^'Ss^s-^ c"€.