f^ v^ IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUP^ C.G. MISC. APPEALNO. -crf Appeal Undei- section 173 ofMotor Vehide Act. 1988) TT,..tAT..TTC< f^-°j~s-av A) ^ NavluS/o HariMmiya, agedabont40 .years, Rqe Bai wife ot'Navlu Muriya, aged abont 38 yeas, 3) Tulaibati, wife of late Laklunu Muriya, aged aboiit. 19 yeai's, AU R/'o village Dongariguda, Tafosil Kondagaon, Dutt. Bastar, C-G. -iiij! lt ^' V^X^"' ..' .^^^? ^sy'/ •/'^y ^^.-- /.* f .^ <;s' --»'& ^ 3). Dharain Singh, S /o Maruiuran Srtliia, R/o Ajnbedkar wa'd, Jagadalpur, Dist.t. Bastar, C.G- Drivmg licence no. D/93, BTR ^ ut-28/8/87. Jaia, S/o about 59 5'ears, R./O Suiul Aaloo Compaiy, Saiijay Market Jagadalpur. (Vemcleno. CG-17D 02.94) The Oriental Insuiaice Compaay Ltd. Ttaougli its Branch Maiager, Jaaadalpur Talisil and Distt. Bastar, (C-G.)( Potcy no.2004/2^5. Dt.28/3/2.003 t.o 21.8.04) CO.) OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 1730FT] ACT, ll, i:^/y!> ^^v^^ ;\p HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH :^ILASPUR M. A. No. 559 of 2004 mi^M' R'aSiW Appellants Navlu 8s others Versus Respondents Dharara Singh & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Aganval, JJ Shri Vishnu Kostha, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri A. K. Athley, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. 01. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the y impugned or'Her dated 21.4.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baster, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 73/2004. 02. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellants/claimants had filed a claim petition on 28.2.2004, which was registered as Claim Petition No. 61/2004. Thereafter, on 8.3.2004 another claim petition was filed by the claimants, which was registered as Clairu Petition No. 73/2004 before the same Tribunal. Thereafter both the claim petitions were taken up together for hearing and they were dismissed vide order <dated 21.4.2004 mainly on the ground that in the subsequent claim petition Eted on 8.3.2004 i.e. Claim Petition No. 73/2004,the claimants have stated that they have not filed any other claim petition and as such they have not come with clean hands. The claimants have not filed appeal against the order in so far as it UiB^ %. .flp ,<sB' .ffift relates to dismissal ofthe Claim PetitionNo. 61/2004. However, they have filed appeal in respect of dismissal of the CIaira Petition No. 73/2004 i.e. the claim petition filed subsequently. 03. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the contents of fhe claim petition. In paragraph 14 the claimants have stated that no claim petition on behalf of the claimants has been field or pending in any other claims Tribunal, except the instant claims Tribunal. Therefore, in respect of claim petition filed earlier in the same Tribunal nothing contrary has been stated, though it was not specifically stated that in the same veiy Tribunal another claim petition was filed and the same is pending. 04. The claimants are illiterate persons and they acted on the advice of the counsel and if claimants filed two different claim petitions, engaging two different counsel, the laymen who do not know whether two claim petitions could be maintainable for the same claim, though the claimants are three in number, should not be penalized due to fhis reason. Therefore, in our opinion if the claimants are enfitled to get compensation they should get the same. At least the claimants should be heard on nierits even if they are not entitled to get the corapensation. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since only one claim petition could be inaintainable and if a liberty would have been given to leamed counsel for the claimants they would have got one of . the claim petifions dismissed as not pressed and in the absence of . liberty it could not become poSSible. However, the claimants who are illiterate persons should not be sufferer for. that, hence only one .appeal i.e. in respect ofClaim Petition No. 73/2004 has been filed. ^ !S ,«,,!|i.P 06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that the matter requires decision by fhe Tribunal on merits of the Claim Petition No.73/2004, given rise to this appeal. 06. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 21.4.2004 is set aside in so far as it relates to Claim Petition No. 73/2004, only. The order of dismissal in respect of Claim Petition No. 61/2004 shall remain intact. We remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider and decide the claim petition on its own merits after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence or amend the pleadings or file the documents. The matter shall be decided on mertts in the light of the observations made above. 07. It is expected that the Tribunal would expedite the hearing and decide the claiin petifion, as indicated above, within a reasonable period. 08. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 09. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from th? Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi •Tudge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge •Thakur A