IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISC. APPEALfONO. OF 2010 ARPELLANT /tAIMANT ^/Ashok Kumar S/o. Rameshwer agedabout. 32 Years,By caste Sahu, R/o. Village - barri Thana Arjuni bist. Dhamtari (C.G.) YEBSUS SJ,-S RESPONOENTS. / Gopiram, S/o Tukaram, aged about 42 years By caste Sahu, R/o Village eiroudi, Thana Magarfoad, bist Dhamtari ( C.&. ) 2. Gokulram, S/o Shri B.R. Sahu, R/o Colfage ^ road Kurud Tahsil Kurud, Dist Dhamtan (C.G.) y'/3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.. ^ Through Branch manager, Divisional office Krishna Complex, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur Tashil and Dist Raipur (C.G.) ^-^" MEMO RANDUM OF MISC APPEALUNDERSECTCON 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ^. ^^/ "^^SA^^ K,,,^^ •l^^s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLB N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M. A. (Cl. No. 446 OF 2010 Vs. APPEARANCB: Mr. Sunil Sahu aiid Mr. Wasim Miyan, counsel for fhe Appellaat. Mr. Saajay S. Agrawal, counsel for fhe Respondent no.3 ORDBR (ORALI (19.10.2010) Per I.M. QUDDU8I 1. This appeal has been filed by fheclaimant agaiast ioipugned award dated 17.03.2010 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanitari ia Clami Case No.89/2009 disinissiag the claioi appUcation. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe clatmaat are fhat on 10.4.2009 appeUaat Ashok Kuiaar was sitting as a pilMon rider on Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.05-H/1060 while Devaaand was driviag fhe said vehicle. They were goiag froia viUage Pahaada to Bhofha. At fhat timie, near fhe field of Gopirain Sahu one Motorcycle (Yamaha Crux) bearmg Rega.No. C.G.04/ C.V-9282 which was beiag driven rashly aad negUgenfly by respondent no. 1 forcefuUy dashed fhe motorcycle of Devaaaad as a result of which Devaaaad aiid appeUaat alongwifh fheir motorcycle fell down, The appellant has received iajuxy on fhe knee of his right leg, foot and vadous parts of ftie body, He was APPBLLANT Ashok Kumar RBSPONDBNT Gopiram aad two otfaers admitted Rameshwaram Hospital, Dhamtari where he had undertaken treatment for 15 to 20 days aad mcurred aa amount of Rs.40,000 - 50,000/- for his treatment Accordiag to the appellant, permanent disabUity has been caused to him and now he is unable to perform his works due to the said accident. Before the accident, he was workiag as a laboiir/hammal aad was eanimg Rs.250- 300/- per day. On account ofiajuiy sustaiaed by him aad permaaent disabiUty caused to him m tfae accident, he filed claim petition seekmg a compensation ofRs.31,74,000/- on different heads. During the pendency ofthe appeal, fhe appeUaat has fUed a new document that is a copy of discharge ticket which is of Rameshwaram Orttiopaedics Hospital, Street No.4, Vivekaaaad Colony, Dhamtari, District Dhanitari. It shows fhe date of admission of the appellant as 10.04.2009 aad fhe date of discharge as 02.05.2009, on which fhis Court directed fhe Supermtendent of Police, Dhamtan to depute aa officer not below the raak of Deputy Superintendent of PoMce to conduct an enquiry who submitted fhe report, accordiag to which, fhe appeUaat was admitted in fhat Hospital on 16.4.2009, but fhe Xerox copy ofthe admission register shows that he was dischai^ed on 29.4.2009 fix?m fhe hospital and his operation was conducted on 16.04.2009. It does not show as to what happened from fhe aUeged date aad time of the accident till 16.04.2009. The clamiant had also uot fUed ia the lower Court aay cash memo of medical shop to show fhat he was being treated -r',^'.^ "^ right froni the date of fhe accident. The Grst cash ineino is dated 26.04.2009. 4. Dr. V.K. Paadey, who was ineinber of fhe Medical Board and signed the disability certificate of fhe appellaat, has not proved fhat he had treated fhe appeUant at aay stage fhough the appeUant has filed fhe discharge ticket which bears his signature aad name on it. 5. In view of fhe above, we are of the opiaion fhat fhe raatter requires reconsideration after conducting a thorough enquiry by the MACT conceraed. Therefore, we set aside fhe impugned award dated 17.03.2010 aad remit the inatter back to fhe MACT conceraed which shall conduct aa enquiry aiid decide the inatter afresh after providiag opportunity to fhe parties conceraed to adduce furth.er evidence, if aay. The records of the MACT shaUL be sent back forthwith. 6. Wifh the aforesaid observaUons/direction, fhis appeal staiids finally disposed of. Sd/- LM,Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Rao