^^i .w^ Oivjgion Bgndl IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. Miscellaneous Apoeal (C). NO?./.^./2010 APPELLANTS i^c ^'••'•'•";i^ ^ ^•:^^^ '^•:"...-"^ VERSUS /JRJBSPONDENTS : 1), ^ 31 India Bai Sahu, aged 54 years, Widow of late Godhi Ram Sahu, Khumesh Sahu, aged 10 years, Son of Ashok Sahu, No.2 is minor, Through : his natural guardian grand mother India Bai, Widow of late Godhi Ram Sahu, Both are R/o. Village Bendrangaon (Rudri), Tahsil and District - Dhamtari (C.G.) Byas Narayan Son of Arjun Singh Dhruv, R/o. Village and Post Rudri, Tahsil . and District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver of ofTending vehicle} Sant Ram Sahu Son of Faguva Ram Sahu, R/o. village and Post - Soram, Tahsil and District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner of offendine vejuclejl National Insurance Company Limited, Naveen Bazar, Ful Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. rjjGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BtLASPUR O 8: Hon'bte Stirl Justlce I.M. Qyddysl Hon'bte Shrl -Jystlce Prasfsaiit Kusfiar Mlshra. MlscelSaiieous AisoeaS JC} No. 314/ 2010 APPELL.ANTS e.£SPQNDENT_S Versus (ndia Bal Sahu and anoth.er Byas Narayan and others Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the appeSSants. Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, counsel for respondente No. •rf ^ ? Cs ^t. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei fQfthe respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (17.09.2010) .EfLLM.^ij^ysLJ* Heard. (2) Thls •appeal has filed a^ainst the Impugned award 12-01-2010 passed by Motor Accident CSaims TrlbunaS, Dhamtan In Clatm Case No. 19/'2008 dismteslng the award. (3) The brief of the are that on 18-^-2007, the deceased Lokesh Sahu was from Jodhapur Chowk, Dhamtari to Rudri by hls motorcycSe C.T.1.00 tearing registration No. CG,-05/8-3876 around 11-00 p.m at that tlme, some vehlcSe dashed his motorGyGieresuStlng v^fch the deceased fell down and iecelveu serlous injuiy. There were two more persons behlnd the decea.sed, however the of the road had taken the deeeasey to Hospitat, Dhamtari, where doctor declared htm dead. The F.S.R. four days t.e. on 22-09-2007 -at -^- 09.45 p.rn In whteh truck No. C.G.05/ZC-0299 was mentloned wtth whlch the accident had allegedty taken place, but in the Griminal case registerey the driver, the driver was acqultted on the flndlng that no accictent in fact had place wlth the truck in questlon. (4) The ciaim was fiSed on 28^1-2008 by the ctatmant, but the compa.nlons ofthe on his motorcycle behind him were not shown as wltness. The owner of the truck as welt as the driver of the trucic has atso appeared In the wltness tox in the tnstant cl-alm petition in questlon and denied the fact of accident wlth thelr truck No.C.G.05/ZC-0^9 on 18-09-^7 at 11.00 p.m. The real uiother of the a^eared sn the box nameSy Sahu, who had that on 03-11-^07 he had moved an appdcation the Superlntendent of Podce and after .gettlng Information frorn A.nwar, Advocate he had mentioned the nuniber of truck in hte compJalnt. However, this wttness has nan-ated the story of accident. He was going on hls motorc^le and when the commttted the truck some dlstance stopped and thls wltness reached up to the trucR and thereafter came back to the place of acctdent. The truck runnlng towards the djrectlon in which thls wltness as wetl as the deceased was on thelr motorcycSes. The truck overtook the motorcycle of the wltness and then met wlth accident from the rear of the motorcyGte on which the going. The statement given to the poltoe under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. does not show that for the flrst tlme he hau seen the truck number after to Khadan on -">' (^) 21-10-2007, but hte sntention was to conflrm number of the truck whlch not shuw that he had not seen the number of the truck at the tlme of accident and only on 21-10-^N37 when he vtelted at Khadan Soram. Anwar, Advocate had affsdavit. Later on he summoned for cross examlnation, he was shown the stateiTtent under Sectlon 161 In ^nich he had that he had seen the truck on whlle vtelting Khadan Soram on 21-10-2007 anci confli-med, but he had salct that he dld not remember such statement. (5) Considering the and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinlon thsit the IVSotor Accldent Claims Tribunal concerned has not appreclated the evidence properiy and the award without consideriny the fuSI evtdence. Further, If the driver was acqultted in the criniin-a-1 trlat, It not mean that the findjngs gtven by tne GriiTsinal Court Is bindtng on the cSalms TribunaS and aSso the evldence recorded In the criminal cannot be read In the ptQGeedtngs before the cSaims Tribunai. The opNon given by the ctirntnal Court cannot be read ^s conctuslve and the tribunal had to take Ite sndependent vjew on the basls of the evldence avaitabie on the record of the clalm (6) In vlew of the above mentloned facts and clrcumstances of the case, the matter requtfes reconsJderatlQn at the ieveS of the M.A.C.T. concerned. In view of the above, we allowthis appeai in part and set-aslde the irnpugned and remlt the matter bacR to the Clalrns Tnbunai for decision afresh. The tnbunaS provide an r~ ^^-^^,,,^ ^- •^"' / ^ ' ^ -^- oppof-luntty to the to addltlonaS evidence, sf they so deslre and wlth the matter in a.ccordance wlth law. (7) No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge