^ » c-h IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. M.A. (cl No. 1^^/2009 APPELLANTS Applicants .A^.s-^ , 4^¥>.< ^"9..<<...^2. ...•••f.^"^' ..••"y^''' ^-t „ ^ Rudraksh Singh Rathia' S/o Late Shir Bhuvrieshwar Singh Rathia, Aged about 50 years, Smt. Sita Bai Rathia W/o Rudraksh Singh Rathia, Aged abouf 45 years ^ ^- ^ ^-•^^'' Both R/o Village Botali, Post Ghinara, through .Bhaimsa, Tahsil-Kartla P.S. Kartla, District- Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Non-applicants VERSUS 1, Jaikaran Pahare S/ o Jhumuk Lal, R/o Virgaon, Mungeli, P.S. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At present Omnagar, Jarhabhatha, BilaspurC.G. {Owner/Driver ofVehicle bearing No. U.P.-75A-5631} 2. ^ The Jhonal Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Jhonal office, T.P. Nagar Korba, District- Korba, (C.G.) ^ MISC. APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hon*ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AICt No. 1621/2009 APPBLLANTS: RESPONDENTS: Rudraksh Siagh Rafhia aad ofhera Vs. Jaikaran Pahare and otiiers MI8C. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLESS ACT. 1988 Appeaarance: Mr. Rajesh Jam, counsel for the appeUaats. None for respondent no. 1. Mr, Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent no.2. '-) Per I.M. OUDDU8I. J. ORALORDBR (07.07.2011) This appeal has been filed by the Claioaaats agaiast the impugned award dated 18,08.2009 passed by fhe II Additional Motor Accident Clauas Tribunal (F.T.C), Korba (C.G) ia Claim Case No.21/2007 dismissiag the claim petition of fhe Appellants. Brief facts of fhe case are fhat on 04.02.2007 deceased Chaadra Shekhar Rafhia along-wifh his classmate Vimala Xess .was goiag towards Bilaspur froin Katghora by Hero Honda Motorcycle (Passion). On fhe way at about 5,30 p.ia. near viUage Mungadih, one Truck bearing Regn,No. U.P.75-A/5631 which was allegedly driven by non-Respondent No. 1 Jaykaran /fy Pahare ia a rash aad negUgent mamier dashed fhe motorcycle. as a result of which deceased sustained iojuries on hte head, face, bofh fhe legs ete. aad died on fhe spot. His c^ssmate Vmiala Xess has also sustamed mjuries ia fhe said accident. The parents of fhe deceased beiag legal- reprcsentatives/ dependents have ffled claica petition u/ s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the award oftotal compensation of Rupees Five Crores and Forty Four Lakhs on various heads. Leamed Claims Tnbunal held fhat the deceased died in fhe motor vehicle accident but it is not proved fhat fhe accident took place due to fhe mistake of respondent no. 1; fhere was no breach of conditions of fhe Insuraace PoUcv aad fhus it has dismissed ftie claim petition ofthe ckdmants. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties and have also penised fhe records offhe Tnbunal. On fhe Motorcycle one Ku. Vimala Xess. was sitting as piUion rider on the motorcycle who got iojmy but fhe son of the claimants who was a practisine lawyer namely C.S. Rathia aeed about 30 years died in fhe same accident. We have noticed that injiircd Ku. Vimla Xess who was sittiag on the motorcycle ffled a Claim Petition No.74/2007 m which certain compensation was graated by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Korba (leamed District Judge C.L.Patel) vide award dated 11.09.2008 holdiag that the accidentwas caused due to rash and negUgent driving of the driver of Tmck No.UP-75-A/5631, i.e.. respondent no. 1 Jaikaran Pahare, but in the instant matter the Tribunal has held that it cannot be said that the owner/driver ofthe Tmck was at fault, therefore; fhere are two contradictoiy (Y!V/ findings in the one aiid the same accident. It appears that neifher the Claims Tribunal had summoned the injured Ku. Vixala Xess for recording evidence nor fhe claimaats had produced her as witaess, 6. In fact, Claim Case No.21/2007 was ffled by the parcnts ofthe deceased before Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC). Korba whereas Claun Petition No.74/2007 was filed by injured Viniala Xess before fhe Motor Accident Claims Tribuxial, Korba (Distdct Judge Korba). However, we are of fhe opinion fhat once fhe accident has been held to be provod ia Claun Case No.74/2007 earUer decided on 19.7.2008, it cannot be said that fhe same is not proved in aaofher claim petition later decided by a difiTercnt Tribunal. 7. Considering fhe facts and circuiastaaces of fhe case, as discussed above. we are ofthe opinion that the matter reqiures reconsideration at the end of fhe Tribunal. Therefore. we allow fhis appeal in part; set aside fhe impugned awaid dated 18.8.2009 passed in Claun Case No.21/2007 aad rcmit the matter back to the Clamis Tribunal for decision afrcsh. As at present, the said Claims Tribunal is no more to function as Fast Track Court. we direct the leamed Distnct Judge, Korba to decide the claim petition afi-esh as a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall conduct eaquiiy to ascertam the trufti as provided ia Riile 226 offhe C,G, Motor Vehicles Rides, 1994 as also in sections 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and shall also summon Ku. Vimla Xess to record her evidence, It wiU also be open for the Claimants to move aa aftpUcation to produce her as awitaess. ^ 8. Needless to mention fhat fhe parties shaU be aflowed to ajaiend fhe pleadio.gs, adduce fiirther evidence, file fhe documents or get fhe docuiaents verified etc aad fhereafter fhe decision shaUL be taken afresh at fhe earUest The pardes shall appear beforc the MACT (District Judge), Korba on 10th ofAugust, 2011. The records of fhe Tribiinal shall be sent back wifhout fiirfher delay. 9. The owner/driver was not avafclable at fhe given address. In fhe Court below also fhe proceediags agamst him were ex- parte. Thereforc, notice shaU be sent to him by the MACT concemed for appearance. 10. In fhe result, the appeal te aUowed ia part. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao