:& ^ ^ ^i v^ i^ 8 $5t o ^. ^-csw <^1 c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1021/2008 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLB ACT 1988 APPBLLANT RESP03SDENT Krishna Kumar Thakur V^rsus Bhagirathi Sahu and anofher DF^ISION BENCH.'- Hon. Shri Satish K. A^iihotri and Hon. Shri N.K. Agai-wal, JJ PRE^ENT:- Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate, for appeUant Shri Praveen K- Dhuraiidhar, Advocate, for respondents. O R DE R fOral) ( Passed on fhis 1st day ofDecember, 2009) Heard. 1. The instaat appeal arises froni the order dated 30-4-2008, passed by fhe IInd Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal^ Durg m Claim Case No, 100/2006 rejecting the claim of tiie appeUant on the ground fhat fhe claiaiaat/appellant has failed to prove that the accident was caused by a truck bearing Registiation No. CG-07-ZC/3134. 2. On a perusal of fhe challan filed by the police, it was found that in a cnminal case, fhere is a speci&c mentioa of fhe track bearfag registration No, CG-07-ZC/3134 which was mvolved m fhe present accident It appears that learaed Tribunal has come to a hiirried conclusion without examining fhe case froia all aagle only ou the basis of not mentionmg of registration nuxaber ofthe vehicle ia ffae F.I.R. 3, We have exaaiined all the pleadiags and the documents produced before fhe Claisiis Tribuiial and we are of tibe considered opioiou that this case requircs reconsideration by permittiag the parties to adduce additioxial evideaces to estabUsh iavolyenient of fhe truck ia question ia the accident. 4, Accordingly, fhe impugned order dated 30-4-2008 is set aside and fhe matoter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh. The Tribiinal is dirccted to consider aad decide fhe clauB. case of fhe appellant ^dBresh, ia accordance with law, on ite own merits, as early as possible, preferably wifhia a period ofthrce nxonfhs froxn fhe date ofrcceipt ofa copy offhis oxder, 5. The parties are permitted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. 6. The observatious, if aoy, made hereiaabove, shall not be constnied as our opmion on laerit. 7. The appeal is aUowed to fhe above extexxt No order asto costs, 8, The Registiy is directed to send back tiie papers, requisitioned from fhe Tribunal, fortihwifh, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge