0-'r ^/ "*J:''.<C;v t^ :.'*^A 2PAGiNo^)..i Siagla Scgf IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL [C] No .,- ^ \ /2008 ^. APPBLLANTS: - 1. Satyanarayan Sahu, Age:-26 Yrs. [KTon-applicant no.2] ^ ^ 8/0:- Shri Mevalal Sahu, .^ 1..^^ ^oV"\,P"^ ..^r^- ^\<v l*^ ^' h^ ...-Y R/0:-Purani Mandi Road, Ganj-Para, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District: - Mahasamund, (C.G.) [Owner ofthe Matador No. C.G.-04/G/ 479] [Non-applicant no.l] 2- Dharain Manjhi, Age:-36 Yrs. S/0: - Shn G.R.Manjhi, R/0:-Ward No.04, Nayapara, Tahsil -Mahasamund, District: - Mahasamund, (C.G.) [Driver ofthe Matador No. C.G.-04/G/ 479] :VERSUS: RESPONDENTS: - 1. Smt. Dharmoutin Bai, Age:-46 Yrs, fdaimant no.Ol ) S W/0 Late ThanuramBanha, 2.^ Dhaniram, Age:-22 Yrs,Son, (Claimant no.02 l / ^ S/0 Late Thanuram Bariha, (Cl;aimant no.03 l .3. IJII'ilt:Nlil:itlli.;ic^ S3il:'ii'.i;l®:B Kii. Dhaneshwari, Age:-19 Yrs,Daughter S/0 Late Thanuram Bariha, All the above are R/0:- Village-Keshaldhih P.S. Tumgao, Tahsil 8s District:- Mahasamund, (C.G.) :.A, c. '^ ^! lANNEXUREt ^AGEJlo^,;. lon-applicant no.SJ ^^y Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Coin.Ltd. Divisional Office at Madina Building, Raipur, Distt. Raipyr[C.G.] ^'^^ ..^ ' ^' [Ins. Com.oftheMatadorNo. C.G.-04/G/479] |[Non-applicant no.4] 5. ^ Chhattisgarh State Forest-Division, Divisional Offlce- Raipur. Raipur, Distt. Raipur[C.G.] [Possession ofthe Matador No. C.G.-04/G/ 479] -: MEMO OF MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION ivs OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. :- l:(ll'iii,Nl: HI^JKHIIIi.lNK^ifes ^ 3^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1268 of 2008 ^ Appellants/ Non applicant No. 2 Respondents Satyanarayan Sahu & Another Versus Smt. Pila Bai Dhru & Others Misc. ADpeal (C) No. 1269 of 2008 Appellants/ Non apDlicant No. 2 Respondents Satyanarayan Sahu & Another Versus Chander Singh Bariha & Qthers Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1270 of2008 Appellants/ NonaDplicantNo.2 Respondents Satyanarayan Sahu & Another Versus Smt. Panchroutin Bai Dhru & Others Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1271 of2008 Appellants/ NonaDDlicant No. 2 Respondents Satyanarayan Sahu & Another Versus Smt. Dharmoutin Bai & Others & Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1308 of 2008 Appellants/ NonaDDlicantNo. 2 Respondents Satyanarayan Sahu & Another Versus Smt. Prem Bai Patel & Others V imilunn Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Aaarwal. Present : Shri Suryakant Mishrawith Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocates for the appellants. Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate for respondent/Branch Manager,the New India Insurance Com. Ltd. Shri Suresh Tandon, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in MAC No. 1269/08. ORALORDER (Passedon 6th dayOfAugust, 2010) 1. By this common order, MA(C) Nos. 1268/08, 1269/08, 1270/08, 1271/08 and 1308/08 are being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in all these appeals and are arising out of same accident. 2. These appeals have been directed by the Owner and Driyer of the offending vehicle against the award dated 04.07.2008, passed by Principle Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for shbrt 'the Tribunal') in claim cases preferred by the injured claimant/legal representatives of deceased persons under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'MVAct'). 3. As per claimants' version in all the claim cases, on 19.04.2006, Panchuram Dhru, Bhagirathi Dhru, Thanuram Bariha, Bhoram Patel and Chander Singh Bariha, were going from Sirpur to Pithora, Distt.Mahasamund to receive Tendupatta bonus in a Matador bearing registration No. CG-04-G-0479 which was alleged to be engaged by the Forest Department. The said vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, as a result of which Panchuram Dhru, <- r"' Bhagirathi Dhru, Thanuram Bariha and Bhoram Patel died due to multiple injuries sustained by them in the said accident and Chander Singh Bariha sustained grievous injuries. Theclaimants in MA (C)Nos. 1268/08, 1270/08, 1271/08 and 1308/08 have preferred claim petitions claiming compensation for the loss occurred to them due to death of their bread-earner and the claimant inMA(C) No. 1269/08 preferred claim petitlon for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident against the driver, owner and insurance company of the Matador in question. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed andsubmissions made by the parties, allowed the claim appljcations and awarded compensation in favour ofclaimants payable by the driver/owner and insurer ofthe offendingvehicle jointly and severally along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till its payment, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was hired and was in possession of the Forest Department. Itwas the Forest Department which allowed the deceased and injured persons to sit and travel in the said Matador, the Forest Department may be held responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants but not the appeltant. Insupport of his contention, he invited attention of thiscourttowards the statement of Laxman Puri Goswami (NAW-3), Forest Guard, Mahasamund range, who has deposed in his statement that on IKjsSll;::"ti:]'!,yi:% ^n:&;'-:;!';'y^'^INaB •r-; 8. ') 19.04.2006, he was posted as Forest Guard, Mahasamund, and he has taken possession of the offending vehicle from the appellant on behalf of Forest Department. The offending vehicle wastherefore in possession ofthe Forest Department at thetimeofaccident. On perusing the process sent by this court to the respondent No. 5 (Chhattisgarh State Forest Division, Divisional Office- Raipur), it appears that the Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur, Forest Division Raipur, in his letter dated 27.07.2009 has stated that there is no forest division like Chhattisgarh State Forest Division, Divisional Office-Raipur, which has been arrayed as a party respondent in the appeal and also before the Tribunql. The alleged accident had occurred in the area of Mahasamund Forest Division and the records of the case are with the Forest Division, Mahasamund. In view of above, it appears that,the respondent No. 5 has wrongly been arrayed as a party in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal as well as before this court in appeals. As per the statement of Laxman Puri Goswami (NAW-3), at the time of accident, the vehicle was in his possession on behalf of Forest Department. Since the Forest Division, Mahasamund, was neither party before the Tribunal nor in the instant appeal, the proper opportunity.of hearing was not afforded to the Forest Division, Mahasamund to controvert the statement of Laxman Puri Goswamiwhich has a material bearing on the result ofthe case, inasmuch as, if it is found that the Forest Department was 9. 10. 11, 12. Sahu in legal possession of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, then, the Forest Department may be held to be deemed owner of the offending vehicle, responsible for payment of compensation. Therefore, it is necessary to add Forest Division, Mahasamund, as a party respondent/defendant in the matter and thereafter, to pass the award after affording full opportunity of hearing to it. For the fprgoing, the impugned award dated 04.07.2008 is set- aside. The matters are remanded back to the Tribuna! for decision afresh in accordance with law, on its own merits after giving opportunity of adding Forest Division,Mahasamund;as party in the claim petition, and thereafter, to give full opportunity of filing written statement and adduceevidence to the newly added party and also to permit the other party to adduce additional evidence, if so advised. The observations, if any, made hereinabove, shall not be construed as our opinion on merrt. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. However.itis made clear that the amount deposited by the appellants shall not be refunded to the appellants and in case the appellant succeeds, the same may be directed to be reimbursed to them by the party who may be held responsible by the Tribunal for payment of compensation. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge