,LLED IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR MISC. APPEAL(C)NO .^l^ OF 2008 MISCELIANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3.73 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appellant € / , Ashok Agrawal, S/o Madan - Agrawal, aged 40 years, Occupafcion - Business, R/o of Village , - Main Road Batauli, Tehsil Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Non-Applicant No. 1 Versus Dhansai Beck, S/o Basu Beck, aged 60 years, Occypation - Cultivation, Caste - Uraon. .\.l n^2. Smt. /' Dhansai, Dhania aged ^;:^!^' ^^"^'"w > Beck, W/o 55 yars, y uNj^'^t >j ^i ^ycu-o^ ^.'^^ •sJ^VC/J A Occupation ~ Dependant, Caste ..-•"^ .-L^ ...*/^" v Uraon ^'"3\ 3. Smt. Pyari Beck, Wd/o Suleman Beck, aged 34 years, Caste - Uraon. 4. Kumari Shakuntala Beck, D/o Suleman Beck, aged 13 years, Caste - Uraon (Minor) Kumari Sheela Becfky D/o Suleman Beck, aged 11: years, Caste Uraon (Minor) ^flf Sikandar Beck, S/o Suleman ^ Beck, aged 8 years, Caste Uraon (Minor) ^7. Kumari Maya Beck, D/o ^'Suleman Beck, aged 6 years, Caste Uraon (Minor) ^ 8. Jaiprakash Beck, S/o Suleman Beck, aged 3 years, Caste Uraon (Minor) (Sl.No.4 to 8 Minors through their Mother/applicant no. 3, All R/o Village Taragi, Tehsil Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Applicants ^ 9. Rajeshwar, S/o Kanwalram, aged 20 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Bhatko, Tehsil S-itapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Non-Applicant No. 2 /yl0. Budhsai, S/o Bholarm, aged 30 years, Occupation - service, R/o Village Kudkela, P.S. Batau-ii', Tehsil Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Non-Applicant no. 3 11. Thakur Prasad Yadav, S/o Baijnath Yadav, aged 28 years, Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Village Kudkela, P.S. Batauli, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Non-Applicant No. 4 (Arising put of the Award dated 29/02/2008 passedby the J.b-tf Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Ambikapur in Motor Accident Claim Case No^lS/07 - Dhansai Beck & others Vs. Ashok Agrawal and others) ^^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATT[S6ARH ^T BILASPUR MVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MK. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.NAWAL IOSHORE A^ARW^L JJ. ^Dpellant Respondents M.A. (0 No.714/2008 Ashok Agarwal Vs Dhoaisai Beck & others Present.' Miss Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the flppellant. Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents No.l to 8, ORDER fOran (15th December, 2010) I.M. Quddusj. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant/owner has preferred this miscellaneous oppeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short *the Act') against the impugned award dated 29.2.2008 ^assed by the learned 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C6') (for short the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.18/07, partly allowing the claim petjtion of the claimants and fastening liabiljty on the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle to poy a compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- to the claimants. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17.6.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening deceased Suleman Budhsai was coming towxrds Shantipara from Batfltili in the motor cycfe bearjng regjstrotion number MP27/6732. He was traveling in the said motorcycle as pillion rider. ftespondent No.ll herein was driving the said motorcycle. On they way, driver of jeep bearing registration number C^15-ZD-1671 dashed the motorcycle <xs a result the deceased oind the driver of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and on 1.7.2005 while undergoing treatment in District ^ovemment Hospital, Ambikcxpur the deceased succ-umbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. TTie claimants, who are porents, widow and children of the deceased, have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the •^\ ^ ^ ^.^ ^ ^ 8 ^ 1 s^' 2 deceased, who was only earning member in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. During the proceedings, the ri9ht of the non-applicants to fjle written statement has been closed, therefore, no issue has been framed in the instant case and the Tribunal on the basis of evi<tence available on record decided the claim case in favour of the ctaimants cmd awarded the compensation. 5, We have heard learned counsel for the porties and pemsed the records of the tribunal as also the findings given in Ihe impugned award. 6. Rute 230 of the Motor Vehjcles Rules, 1994 envisages as under:- "230. Framing and detertnination of issues:- (1) After considering the written statement or -the resuh of examinatjon of the opposite party and the result of the local inspection, if any, the Ctoims Tribunal shall proceed to frame -Hie issues. (2) After framing the issues, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. 7, A bare reading of above provisions of law reveal that if the stage of writt-en statement is over and the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against any of the non-opplicant, even then the Tribunal has to frame issues on the basis of result of examination of the opposite party and the result of the local jnspection, jf any, and after that stage, the Tribunal shall proceed to record the evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. 8. From peruaal of the impugned award, it is evident that after closure of the appellant's right to file the writt-en statement, -Hie Tribunal has not followed the provisions of ftule 230 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and passed the impugned award without framin9 and determining the issue. Tlierefore, we are of the opinion that the matt^er should be remtt^ed back to the Tribunal for decision afresh after following the provisions of Rule 230 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and affording adequate opportunit/ to Ihe appellant in accordance with law. ^— ^ 9. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the award dated 29.2.2008 passed in Claim Case No.18/2007 by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Cldms Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C^) caid remit the matter back to the Tnbunal for decision afresh in the light of observations made in this order. The claim petition shall be restored to its original number and shall be decided afresh by the Tribunal after affording opportunity to the parties to adduc«additional evidence, if any, in support ; of issues which may be framed by the Tribunal as per provisions of Rule 230 of the Motor Vehicles ftules, 1994. It is made clear that whatever fjndings have been given in the impugned award shall not be taken into consideration and without being influenced by those findin9S,the decisjon shall be taken by the tribunal independently. 10. The appTOl is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. ftoshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge