^wx-.-.^stssSiStcM.-sS.ii.aGKt: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTASGARH ATBILASPUR M.A.©NO.^ I? OF 2008 APPELANTS- Claiments 1. .^^ ^'.^' ,4..^"..^ Smt. Moharmati, Wd/o Late Sabal @ Naval Kishore Sidar age30years, Manohar Sidar, S/o Late Sabal @ Naval Kishore Sidar age 1 years, Through Natural Guardian Smt. Moharmati Both R/o Village- Godikala, Jharamuda Tah.- Pathalgoan, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Respondents: - VERSUS ^ 1. Nand Kishore Agrawal, S/o Surajbhan Agrawal, age 50 years, Caste- Agrawal R/o Vitlage- Ambikapur Road Pathalgoan, Distt. Jashpur(C.G.) (Non Applicant No. 1) %- 2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office- Raigarh (C.G.) (Non Applicant No. 2) MISCELANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A. (Ct No. 218 OF of2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDBNTS Smt. Mohannati and another Versus Nand Kishore Agrawal aad another DIVISION BENCHs- Hon. Shri Satish K. Agnihotri and Hon. Shri N.K. Aganyal, JJ PRBSBNT:- Sushri Sharmila Singhai, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Shri Bhupendra Sharma Advocate for respandent 1. ORAL ORDBR (12-11-2009) Per Satish K. Afinihotri, J 1. The instant appeal arises from fhe order dated 16-11-2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Motor Accident Claun Case No. 49/2006 filed iinder Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 2. Leamed counsel for fhe appellants woiild submit fhat admittedty husband of fhe appellant No. 1 and father of the respondent No. 2 namefy Sabal @ Naval Koshore Sidar died in acddent on 22-9-2006. He would further submit ftiat wiftiout permitting the appeUant and the respondents to examine any evidence with regard to negligence and ofher relevant facts, leamed Tribunal dismissed the petition on a simple ground that Sabal @ Naval Kishore Sidar was driving a Jeep bearing registration No. CG 14 A/0395 which fell into a pond. Leamed Tribunal has further not considered the fact as to whether the Jeep was insured and to what extent @ msurance company was liable. The claim case was dismissed on 16-11-2007 on the ground of maintainability at fhe threshold. 3. The order impugned is veiy casual and cryptic without dealing with ftie issue involved or without considering the claim of fhe appellants. 4. Thus fhe order dated 16-11-2007 is quashed. Tlie appeal is remitted back to fhe Tribunal for fi'esh consideration after examining all the evidences adduced by the parties, if so advised. Since fhe accident had taken place on 22nd September, 2006, in fhe interest ofjustice, it is expedient that fhe claim case may be considered as expeditiousty as possible preferably within a period of4 months. 5. Any observation made hereinabove may not be construed as opinion of ttie Court on the matter. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge