l?ffl«/:lli' BEFORE THE fflGH CQ1URT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR '" ^ '.":^^i.!^!c ^^i '^ '^A ^^. .^^S^ft^ M.A.No..-?v-| /200^ APPELLANTS : Versus RESPQNDENTS ,1. Arkshit Bariha ,aged about -55 years s/o-Late Mansha Bariha 2. Smt. Giri Bariha, aged about-52 years / w/o-Arkshit Bariha x3. Smt. Parvati Bariha, aged about-24 yrs w/o-Late Kiroti Bariha 4, Kishore Kumar Bariha, aged about-7 yrs / s/o-Late Kiroti Bariha 5. Khirod Kumar Bariha ,aged about -2 yrs / All r/o-viilage-CUhatigirola, TahasiI-SgTaipali, Dist-mahasasniBd Appellant no.4 & 5 minof repi'esenteii Through natural Guardian mother ,ap^U£ait No.3 SmtParvati BariN. 1. Kurd Barik, s/o-Dafeira Barik ^' ' Aged about-45 yrs , r/o-village-Balsi, Thana-SaraipaU, Dist-Mahasamund. 2. Nagar Panchayat -Saraipali, / Through-ChiefMuncipalOf&cer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, Dist-Mahasamund. ^-/' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VECmLE ACT.1988 !'i» !ii'::.i V 3^, HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal No.54 of 2005 Appellants Respondents versus Arkshit Bariha and others Kurti Barik and another Present: Shri Harsh Mahant, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Yehicles Act, 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th December, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 19-8-2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 103/2003. 1 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing- for the appellants has submitted that the appellants, due to wrong advice, had approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They want to approach the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (henceforth 'the Commissioner') and, therefore, they pray for permission to withdraw the present miscellaneous appeal with liberty to move a claim petitipn before the Commissioner. •shUs-- 4. In view of the above and considering that the deceased was a daily wager engaged in the Nagar Panchayat Saraipali, we set aside the impugned award and allow the claimants/appellants to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a claim petition before the Commissioner. 5. It appears that the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was filed on 22-9-2003. The date of accident is 17-5-2003. If a claim petition is moved before the Commissioner, he may consider this fact and comply the proviso under clause (b) of sub- section (1)ofSection lOoftheWorkmen'sCompensationAct. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopai