:^w'^^^^:f}'r^J'i';;'WS?s!^:^^^is HIGH COXyRT< CHHATnSCyUai. BILA8PUR DB: 1 HOITBLE I.M. QUDDU8I & ! HON»BLBN.K. ASARWAL, JJ M. A. N0. 304 of 2003 :z.- I; fc' Vs. RE8PONDBNTS APPEARANCB: 1. 2. 3. Rajendra, S/Q Gaya Prasad, c/o Hori Lal, s/o Raglmuaith, r/o. D-2/33 Vgai Eiiclave Vixmdpuri Palam, New DeUii. Horilal,s/p.Raghmiath,r7o. D-2/33 Vgai Enclave/Viiaodpun Pala^ DeUu Ttie Oiiental tn&uraace Co. Ltd., thixm^ D The Orieiital Iristu'aiice Co.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^L^ Road, Raipui^ Distt. Raipiir(C.Gi), BHSC^LLANlBOUS APPEAL VNDBR SBCTIOH 173 OF THB MOTORVEHICLES ACT, 1988 Mr. S.C.VERMA, counselfor^^t^ Mr. Abhis|iek ^baha aiid^^^^^^^^M^ responderit no,3. Per I.M. QUDDtnSL J. ORDBRIORALI (09.11.2010) 01. This appcjal has been filed agamst fhe in^ Jltdgment and awai|d dated 24.12^2002 passed by the Chief Motor Accidentsj Glaims Tribunal, Korba, in Claun Case No. 2/2002 dismissinig fhe claica pefitfon. APPBLLANT8 1. Cxendli Raixi, s/o Bodtd Ram^^^^^^^^^^^a^ aboutSOyears, e. 2. KesarBa^w/oCjeDdiamSa^^ about 48 years, peniia^ Saklore, P. O. Hirmi, Dist. Raipiir (G.G) preseiit addrcss V3U. & P.0. Bii^aon, P.S. Uria, Dist. Raipur (e.G).,. ' . ;r ^;; 1/'/''..::: . ^^^ss^ yy' ,.-^ 1 '-'••<";^ t' J." 02. Brieffacts oftlie case as per fhe version ofthe claiaiaats are fhat on 03.08.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., deceased Leela Ram was goiag on Cycle. At fhat time, one Truck bearmg Regn. No.H.R.5114 which was rashly aiid negUgently beiag driven by respondent no.l dashed the cycle of Leela Ram near Haryaaa border, as a result of which he sustained grievous iajuries aad died. The said offending tnick was owned by respondent no.2 and was iasured wifh respondent no.3 at tlie tiine ofaccident. The deceased was worktag ia a factoiy situated ia Gurgaon (Haryaaa). The parents offhe deceased beiag claimants have inade clalm to fhe tune of Rs.7,62,000/" on different heads. The learaed Claims Tribunal held that there is no evidence that on 03.08.2001 respondent no.l whUe driviag the offending Truck bearing Regn.no. H.R. 5114 rashly and negUgently dashed fh.e cycle of deceased aad caused the accident aad fherefore it is not proved fhat fhe deceased had died on account of injuries sustaiaed ia fhe accident. 03• We have perused fhe Records offhe Tribunal aad found fhat fhe son of appeUaat no. 1 namely Nakul Raai identified fhe body of fhe deceased at Safdarjaag Hospital, New DeUii. AppeUaat no. 1 namely Gendram Sahu has given statement in fhe witaess box as P.W.l aad also proved Exhibits. Further we cannot ignore fhe provisions ofsectionl68 offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that fh.at on receipt of aa appUcation for coiapensation inade u/s 166, fhe Claims Tribunal shall after giving flie parties (iacludmg ttie iasurer) aa opportunity of beiag heard, hold aa mquiry iato fhe claiin and subject to the provisions of section 162 xnay '^ •^ inake aa award detenniaiag fhe ainount of coinpensation which appears to it to be just. However, fhe Tribunal has not conducted aay enqiury aad dismissed the claioi. Further, rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides that tlie Clamis Tribunal shaU obtam whatever uiformation aad dociunents which niay be found necessary froni the poUce, inedical aad ofher authorities and proceed to award fhe clami whether the parties who werc given notice, appear or not, on fhe appoiated date. 04. This fact caaiiot also be iguored fhat fhe accident had talcen place on 03.8.2001, fhe driver offhe vehicle was arrested on 04,08.2001 fhat is the next day ia a crune registered u/s 279 &.304-A ofIPC aad the body was identified by the real brofher of fhe deceased, charge sheet has also been filed ia fhe Court of A.C.J.M. Gurgaon by P.S. Udyog Vihar ia connection with the F.I.R. No.275 dated 03.08.2001 aad the case was registered as Criminal Case No.589/2001 before the A.C.J.M., Gurgaon. In fhe FJ.R., fhe registration num-ber offhe vehicle was also nientioned. 05. In view offhe above inentioned facts and circuinstaaces, fhe fuidiag of the Tribunal on Issue no. 1 to fhe effect that fhere is no evidence fhat iii fact fhe accident took place on 03.8.2001 with Tmck No.H.R.26/5114 is not sustainable. Further ia view of section 168 of the Act, 1988, fhe Tribiiaal should have conducted aa enquiry and fhen oiily it should have given the findiag, fherefore fhe said fiindiag on issue no.4 is preinature. ..^''' ^€^^ '^••<iy j ^. /• .^ 06. Considering fhe above facts aad circumstaaLces of ftie case, we are of fhe opiDion that fhe niatter requires reconsideration at fhe end of clauns Tribunal. Therefore, we allow fhis appeal ia part, set aside fhe iaipugned award and rendt the raatter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh ia Ught of fhe observations inade hereiaabove. Needless to inention that the parties shall be allowed to adduce further evidence, amend pleadiags, file docuinents or verify the docuinents etc., ah-eady filed and fhereafter fhe clami petition would be decided on nients after conductmg fhe enquiry if necessary as observed above as early as possible wifhin a period of six mionfhs froin fhe date of receipt of records of fhe Tribunal. The records of fhe Tribnnal shaU be sent back forthwifh. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge fr^