HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, JJ. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 389 of2010 1. Binda Bai, Wife of Ghanaram, Nishad, aged about 45 years, 2. Parmeshwar Sonof Ghanaram Nishad, aged about 25 years. 3. Chukeshwari Daughter of Ghanaram Nishad, aged about 19 years. All are Residents of Village Rakhi, Post Bhatagaon, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Sukhdev Singh of Sampuran Singh, aged about not known, Resident of Sihawa Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2) Manjeet Singh Son of Inder Singh, aged about not known, Resident of Sihawa Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Balak Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT.1988 Shri P.P. Sahu forthe appellants. None for the respondents. Shri Prasenjit Dutta for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 08.07.2010) The following oral order of the Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J. By this appeal, the appellants challenged the illegality and propriety of the award dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Prinicipal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claims Case No. 38/2010 whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove the fact that offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 at the time of accident and was rash and negligent in causing accident resulting into death of Ghanaram. 2) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.12.2007 the deceased Ghanaram was coming to Raipur from the village Rakhi by his motor cycle. Respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh was driving the truck bearing registration No. C.G. 05 ZC/0184 and on account of rash and negligent driving he dashed the motor cycle driven by Ghanaram and thereby caused his death. F.1.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1 before the J.M.F.C. Kurud, District Dhamtari. 3) Legal representatives of the deceased Ghanaram have filed the claim petition on account of death of Ghanaram under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. 4) Respondent No.1, the alleged driver of the vehicle by filing the written statement has denied the rash and negligent act and has alleged that at the time of accident he was driving the vehicle cautiously but accident took place on the ground of fault of another vehicle. Respondent No.2 has not filed any reply and the Tribunal has proceeded ex parte against respondent No.2. By filing written statement, the respondentNo.3 has denied the claim ofthe appellants. 5) After affording opportunity and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the present appellants have failed to establish the fact that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 at the time of accident and by rash and negligent act respondent No.1 has caused the death of Ghanaram. 6) Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants and Shri Prasenjit Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3 are heard. Notice issued to respondents No.1 & 2 has been received unserved. Respondent No.2 was ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. The award impugned and the record of the Tribunal perused. 7) Counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and deposed in his evidence that at the time of accident he was driving the aforesaid truck. As per para 2 of his evidence, he was driving the vehicle F ^tc';^ , ^..y/ ^--" A rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident. Despite that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh. 8) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the appeal and submits the in the present case the respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle was ex parte before the Tribunal, therefore, he did not contest the case relating to accident. Statement of A.W.2 is not reliable and does not inspire confidence. 9) In order to appreciate arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. The evidence of all witnesses revealed that only the driver i.e. respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh was present on the spot at the time of accident and he was the only person to unfold the story. Respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh has deposed in his evidence at the time of accident he was driving the said truck and has caused the accident. In para 2 of his cross- examination, he has specifically admitted that the time of accident on 17.12.2007 he was driving the vehicle negligently and caused the accident. In the absence of any other evidence, there is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh,driver of the said truck and for such accident he was facing trial but while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal has not considered the controverted evidence of respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh and thereby committed illegality. 10) For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the evidence of respondent No.1 Sukhdev Singh is sufficient to prove the factum of causing accident in a rash and negligent manner resulting into death of Ghanaram. 11) Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The award impugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation payable to the appellants after providing opportunity to both the parties including ex parte respondent No.2—Manjeet Singh, owner of the vehicle. Parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 18th August 2010. No order as to costs. — — - - Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \(^